On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:Have you really got nothing better to do with your time?
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
of its input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state.
WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try to actually PROVE your statement.
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> windows
of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference betweeen FORMAL logic >>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it.
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
(V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity.
Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven >>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>> you, you
have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your heart, which >>>>>>>>>>>>> is why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't require peer >>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly
transitions to
its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently true.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am >>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am >>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am >>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am >>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am >>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input >>>>>>>>>>> halts on
its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it.
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H will >>>>>>>>>> never
halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see that we >>>>>>>>>> have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H has >>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting >>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input and >>>>>>>>>> goes to
H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not exist. >>>>>>>>>>
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for this >>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf H" >>>>>>>>>> applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that BECAUSE H >>>>>>>>>> <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and Halt, >>>>>>>>>> and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not correct. >>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand anything about >>>>>>>>>> formal
logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter example >>>>>>>>>> means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' and >>>>>>>>>> not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being used to >>>>>>>>>> make
that claim, is just unsound logic.
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, but only >>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what you >>>>>>>>>> are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you have revealed that >>>>>>>>>> you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement,
which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that is the >>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a
background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do to >>>>>>>>>> show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you don't >>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't undstand the >>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the idea of >>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with little >>>>>>>> time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy.
Since you already agreed that the pathological self-reference of >>>>>>>> the halting problem proofs makes these proof illegitimate I have >>>>>>>> no idea why you would be reversing course now.
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate.
Here is Flibble's reply:
Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a
single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance in
my paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron.
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a premise. >>>
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can only
be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove that
Truth is only something that csn be proven.
This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements that
must either be True of False, there is no possible middle ground, but
these statements have not been shown to be provable or disprovable.
An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
Every expression of language does not count as true until after it has
been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an analytical
expression of language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the value
of Boolean true. It is derived by sound deduction that is ultimately
anchored in axioms.
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to assume.
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:Here is Flibble's reply:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:Have you really got nothing better to do with your time? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
of its input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
transitions to its reject state.
WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try to actually PROVE your statement.
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the windows
of an office building. It is all in the simple meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference betweeen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
(V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity.
Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you, you
have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your heart, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require peer
review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts on
its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it.
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> will never
halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we see >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that H >>>>>>>>>>>>>> has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong.
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running opf >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about formal
logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter >>>>>>>>>>>>>> example means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the words' >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being >>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic.
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only
formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand what >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of understandable since you have revealed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological statement, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>> undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with >>>>>>>>>>>> little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my >>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
Since you already agreed that the pathological
self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes these >>>>>>>>>>>> proof illegitimate I have no idea why you would be reversing >>>>>>>>>>>> course now.
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate. >>>>>>>>>>
Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for
support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to a >>>>>>>> single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of substance >>>>>>>> in my paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron. >>>>>>>>
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a
premise.
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth can >>>>>>> only be something that is proven, and then from that try to prove >>>>>>> that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid.
For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements
that must either be True of False, there is no possible middle
ground, but these statements have not been shown to be provable
or disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
Every expression of language does not count as true until after it >>>>>> has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an
analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that
assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound
deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to
assume.
Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true entirely
on the basis of their meaning.
WRONG. Formal;
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a cat
is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.
Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something already
defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That violates the
rules of Formal Logic.
On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:logic is a branch of philosophy
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:Here is Flibble's reply:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:Have you really got nothing better to do with your time? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote:
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the windowsOn 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
of its input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
transitions to its reject state.
WRONG. You aren't following the right definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try to actually PROVE your statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of an office building. It is all in the simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference betweeen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
(V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity.
Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have proven >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you, you
have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your heart, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require peer
review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> am correct.
Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input halts on
its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it.
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H will never
halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opf H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about formal
logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic.
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical arguments, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but only
formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of understandable since you have revealed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
Since you already agreed that the pathological
self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes these >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof illegitimate I have no idea why you would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reversing course now.
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for >>>>>>>>>>> support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down to >>>>>>>>>> a single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of
substance in my paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron. >>>>>>>>>>
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as a >>>>>>>>> premise.
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth >>>>>>>>> can only be something that is proven, and then from that try to >>>>>>>>> prove that Truth is only something that csn be proven.
This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid. >>>>>>>>>
For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements >>>>>>>>> that must either be True of False, there is no possible middle >>>>>>>>> ground, but these statements have not been shown to be provable >>>>>>>>> or disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
Every expression of language does not count as true until after >>>>>>>> it has been proven. There are only two ways to determine if an >>>>>>>> analytical expression of language is true. It is an axiom that >>>>>>>> assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound
deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need to >>>>>>> assume.
Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true
entirely on the basis of their meaning.
WRONG. Formal;
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a cat
is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.
Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something already
defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That violates
the rules of Formal Logic.
"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their
meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
logic is a branch of philosophy
On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry.
On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Every expression of language does not count as true until
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:Here is Flibble's reply:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote:Have you really got nothing better to do with your time? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must abort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not the windowsof its input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctlyWRONG. You aren't following the right definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
transitions to its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try to actually PROVE your statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of an office building. It is all in the simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference betweeen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested simulation
(V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity.
Not ONE bit of formal prpof.
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you, you
have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart, which is why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> require peer
review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to
its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am correct.
Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input halts on
its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it.
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of H" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or H will never
halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have said >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to H.Qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple running >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opf H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to H".Qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about formal
logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a counter >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions being >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic.
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of understandable since you have revealed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of Propositions, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal cancer with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
Since you already agreed that the pathological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof illegitimate I have no idea why you would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reversing course now.
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be illegitimate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking for >>>>>>>>>>>>> support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem down >>>>>>>>>>>> to a single simple sentence. Try and find a single error of >>>>>>>>>>>> substance in my paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a moron. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your conclusion as >>>>>>>>>>> a premise.
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that Truth >>>>>>>>>>> can only be something that is proven, and then from that try >>>>>>>>>>> to prove that Truth is only something that csn be proven. >>>>>>>>>>>
This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>
For example, in mathematics, there are a number of statements >>>>>>>>>>> that must either be True of False, there is no possible
middle ground, but these statements have not been shown to be >>>>>>>>>>> provable or disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem. >>>>>>>>>>
after it has been proven. There are only two ways to determine >>>>>>>>>> if an analytical expression of language is true. It is an
axiom that assigned the value of Boolean true. It is derived >>>>>>>>>> by sound deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms.
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you need >>>>>>>>> to assume.
Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true
entirely on the basis of their meaning.
WRONG. Formal;
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that a
cat is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong.
Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something
already defined in the system, especially to something wrong. That
violates the rules of Formal Logic.
"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of
their meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different rules.
Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things differently than
what you want to use.
On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:the truth.
On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
logic is a branch of philosophy
On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in geometry. >>>>>>>>>> In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you really got nothing better to do with your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time?
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not the windowsof its input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctlyWRONG. You aren't following the right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
transitions to its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try to actually PROVE your statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of an office building. It is all in the simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the
words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> betweeen FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones.
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting problem undecidability and infinitely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nested simulation
(V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not ONE bit of formal prpof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with you, you
have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart, which is why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't require peer
review to make statements.
Every simulating halt decider that must abort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to
its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input halts on
its own without being aborted.
How about our H and the H" built from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have shown the H must abort its simulation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H" or H will never
halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we see that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts.
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running opf H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about formal
logic or how to prove something.
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter example means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
This is sort of understandable since you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revealed that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if that is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also shows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal cancer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with little time left. I intend my HP proof rebuttal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be my legacy.
Since you already agreed that the pathological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these proof illegitimate I have no idea why you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be reversing course now.
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.
Here is Flibble's reply:
Flibble is a well known crank and troll.
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and looking >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to a single simple sentence. Try and find a single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error of substance in my paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moron.
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your
conclusion as a premise.
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth can only be something that is proven, and then from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that try to prove that Truth is only something that csn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be proven.
This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For example, in mathematics, there are a number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements that must either be True of False, there is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible middle ground, but these statements have not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been shown to be provable or disprovable. An example of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is the 3x+1 problem.
Every expression of language does not count as true until >>>>>>>>>>>>>> after it has been proven. There are only two ways to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine if an analytical expression of language is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an axiom that assigned the value of Boolean true. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is derived by sound deduction that is ultimately anchored >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in axioms.
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you >>>>>>>>>>>>> need to assume.
Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true >>>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of their meaning.
WRONG. Formal;
If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say that >>>>>>>>>> a cat is the windows of an office building you are simply wrong. >>>>>>>>>>
Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something >>>>>>>>> already defined in the system, especially to something wrong. >>>>>>>>> That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of >>>>>>>> their meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction >>>>>>>>
Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different
rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things
differently than what you want to use.
Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth preserving
operations to premises that are known to be true (sound deductive
inference) on the basis of the semantic relevance that is maintained
in the syllogism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet still
requires true preserving operations to be applied on the basis of
semantic relevance.
Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole world
agrees is
Find, you are on your own.
Things an ignoramus would say:
YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the basicWhen everything that you learn you learn by only rote understanding
principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to discuss it.
cannot possibly get any more shallow.
I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which correct
reasoning is based.
Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all of
Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is useless.
You need to either talk in the epistemological groups to get them to
just reject out of hand that the Formal Logic systems are valid and that
they just need to ignore everything that comes out of it (good luck) or
you find a group on fundamental Formal Logic and discuss your issues there.
At the level of Computation Theory, there CAN'T be a change in definiton
of 'Truth', except as it trickles up, as Field is based on so much that derives from more fundamental fields, which would need to work on
changing first.
You are basically being the guy looking under the street lamp for your
keys, and when someone asks you where you dropped them you point to the
other side of the lot where it is dark, but explain that you are looking
here because there is light.
I will warn you, that from what I am seeing, for you to go into those
areas you will need to be prepared to fight a Battle of Wits, even
though it seems you are unarmed.
On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:the truth.
On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
logic is a branch of philosophy
On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:(1) That is already what analytical truth means:
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in >>>>>>>>>>>> geometry.
On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you really got nothing better to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your time?
How about our H and the H" built from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Every simulating halt decider that must abort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its
WRONG. You aren't following the right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.Try to prove that a baby kitten is an animal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not the windows
Try to actually PROVE your statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
of an office building. It is all in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple meaning of the
words.
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> betweeen FORMAL logic
systems and informal ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting problem undecidability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not ONE bit of formal prpof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven something,
but if you want anyone who means anything to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree with you, you
have a VERY long wait.
I think that you understand this deep in your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart, which is why
you just peddle your garbage on forums that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't require peer
review to make statements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to
its reject state.
You all know that what I say is self-evidently >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
The fact that no counter-example exists proves >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am correct.
Example:
A simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this input halts on
its own without being aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have shown the H must abort its simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H" or H will never
halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> we see that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you claim >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running opf H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just shown >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about formal
logic or how to prove something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter example means
your statement must be true is just plain unsond >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL definitions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being used to make
that claim, is just unsound logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs.
All you have done is PROVED that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revealed that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but Philosophy, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so if that is the
field you are used to talking in, you just don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a background to
handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory uses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you have just FAILED to understand what you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer with little time left. I intend my HP proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal to be my legacy.
Since you already agreed that the pathological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these proof illegitimate I have no idea why you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be reversing course now.
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.
Here is Flibble's reply:
Flibble is a well known crank and troll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness theorem >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down to a single simple sentence. Try and find a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> single error of substance in my paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a moron.
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth can only be something that is proven, and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from that try to prove that Truth is only something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that csn be proven.
This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
For example, in mathematics, there are a number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements that must either be True of False, there is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no possible middle ground, but these statements have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
Every expression of language does not count as true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until after it has been proven. There are only two ways >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to determine if an analytical expression of language is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. It is an axiom that assigned the value of Boolean >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. It is derived by sound deduction that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately anchored in axioms.
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to assume.
Analytical expressions of language are verified to be true >>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely on the basis of their meaning.
WRONG. Formal;
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect.
If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say >>>>>>>>>>>> that a cat is the windows of an office building you are >>>>>>>>>>>> simply wrong.
Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for something >>>>>>>>>>> already defined in the system, especially to something wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> That violates the rules of Formal Logic.
"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue >>>>>>>>>> of their meaning"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction >>>>>>>>>>
Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different
rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things
differently than what you want to use.
Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth preserving
operations to premises that are known to be true (sound deductive
inference) on the basis of the semantic relevance that is
maintained in the syllogism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet still
requires true preserving operations to be applied on the basis of
semantic relevance.
Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole world
agrees is
Find, you are on your own.
Things an ignoramus would say:
YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the basicWhen everything that you learn you learn by only rote understanding
principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to discuss it.
cannot possibly get any more shallow.
I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which correct
reasoning is based.
Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all of
Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is useless.
Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100% directly
opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any less peripheral.
You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth used in Formal Logic, you don't work
in a peripheral field, which CAN'T change the definition of Truth it
uses, because it has inhereted it from its
On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:the truth.
On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
logic is a branch of philosophy
On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue >>>>>>>>>>>> of their meaning"
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry.
On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote:
olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you really got nothing better to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your time?
How about our H and the H" built from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Example:On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Every simulating halt decider that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
WRONG. You aren't following the right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.Try to prove that a baby kitten is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal and not the windows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
Try to actually PROVE your statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> betweeen FORMAL logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting problem undecidability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not ONE bit of formal prpof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have proven something, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to agree with you, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think that you understand this deep in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your heart, which is why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't require peer
review to make statements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You all know that what I say is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true.
The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A simulating halt decider that must abort the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its
input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where this input halts on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have shown the H must abort its simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H" or H will never
halt. That is accepted.
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> we see that we
have the following trace:
We start at H".Q0 <H">
We go to H".Qx <H"> <H">
since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input and goes to
H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H goes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running opf H" applied
to <H"> must never halt, but we have just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown that BECAUSE H <H">
<H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn and Halt, and
thus H has violated its requirements, and thus >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything about formal
logic or how to prove something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A claim that because someone hasn't produced a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter example means
your statement must be true is just plain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsond logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you have done is PROVED that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are
doing, and you don't understand how to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revealed that you goal
is just to try to establish an Epistemological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement, which isn't
even a field of "Formal Logic', but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a background to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation Theory >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to do to show
something in COmputation Theory, which also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't undstand the
concept of the Knowing of the Truth of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of
actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer with little time left. I intend my HP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof rebuttal to be my legacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you already agreed that the pathological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why you would be reversing course now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is Flibble's reply:
Flibble is a well known crank and troll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem down to a single simple sentence. Try and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find a single error of substance in my paper: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a moron.
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Truth can only be something that is proven, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then from that try to prove that Truth is only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that csn be proven.
This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
For example, in mathematics, there are a number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements that must either be True of False, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no possible middle ground, but these statements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have not been shown to be provable or disprovable. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of this is the 3x+1 problem.
Every expression of language does not count as true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until after it has been proven. There are only two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to determine if an analytical expression of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to assume.
Analytical expressions of language are verified to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true entirely on the basis of their meaning.
WRONG. Formal;
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and say >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a cat is the windows of an office building you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply wrong.
Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for
something already defined in the system, especially to >>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong. That violates the rules of Formal Logic. >>>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC.
https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
But is a different branch than your Epistemology with different >>>>>>>>> rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines things
differently than what you want to use.
Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth
preserving operations to premises that are known to be true
(sound deductive inference) on the basis of the semantic
relevance that is maintained in the syllogism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet
still requires true preserving operations to be applied on the >>>>>>>> basis of semantic relevance.
Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole world >>>>>>>> agrees is
Find, you are on your own.
Things an ignoramus would say:
YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding theWhen everything that you learn you learn by only rote
basic principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to
discuss it.
understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow.
I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which correct >>>>>> reasoning is based.
Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all of
Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is useless. >>>>>
Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100% directly
opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any less peripheral.
You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic
underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory
peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth used in
Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral field, which CAN'T
change the definition of Truth it uses, because it has inhereted it
from its
(a) The halting problem proofs,
(b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
(c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
(d) The liar paradox
all suffer from the same foundational error.
I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely DIFFERENT sort
of issue,
When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of true
statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then all four of
the above examples lose their basis and cease to exist.
Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept that you
can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.
What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something can be
True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to be true, you can't
use it for the basis of a further proof.
Validity and Soundness
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
conclusion nevertheless to be false. https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Even the above conventional definition of valid errs.
Here is its correction:
A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
form that makes its conclusion a necessary consequence of its premises.
Without this correction it permits expressions of language having
nothing to do with each other to specify logical entailment.
cows are not dogs
cows are not airplanes
∴ butterflies have wings
So, are you saying that because the premises are false buttrflies DON'T
have wings?
On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:Lets proceed from here. How do we know that a mathematical expression is
On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:the truth.
On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:"Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of their meaning"
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry.
On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:WRONG. Formal;
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:Every expression of language does not count as true >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until after it has been proven. There are only two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to determine if an analytical expression of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language is true. It is an axiom that assigned the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value of Boolean true. It is derived by sound >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in axioms. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you really got nothing better to do with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your time?
How about our H and the H" built from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Example:On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Every simulating halt decider that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state.
Try to prove that a baby kitten is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal and not the windows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.Every simulating halt decider that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WRONG. You aren't following the right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try to actually PROVE your statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RED HERRING.
You just don't understand the difference >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> betweeen FORMAL logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
Halting problem undecidability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not ONE bit of formal prpof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have proven something, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means anything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to agree with you, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think that you understand this deep in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your heart, which is why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that don't require peer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You all know that what I say is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A simulating halt decider that must abort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where this input halts on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have shown the H must abort its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of H" or H will never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H <H"> we see that we
have the following trace: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We start at H".Q0 <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have said that H has
supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input and goes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim does not exist.
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to H.Qn for this
input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple running opf H" applied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown that BECAUSE H <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H".Qn and Halt, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus is not correct.
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand anything about formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A claim that because someone hasn't produced >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a counter example means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsond logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the meaning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the words' and not
being able to show the actual FORMAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude rhetorical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguments, but only
formal step by step proofs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you have done is PROVED that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have revealed that you goal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological statement, which isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a background to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to do to show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shows that you don't
really understand Epistimology, as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly don't undstand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer with little time left. I intend my HP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof rebuttal to be my legacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you already agreed that the pathological >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-reference of the halting problem proofs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes these proof illegitimate I have no idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why you would be reversing course now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is Flibble's reply:
Flibble is a well known crank and troll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem down to a single simple sentence. Try and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find a single error of substance in my paper: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't even >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take a moron.
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Truth can only be something that is proven, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then from that try to prove that Truth is only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that csn be proven.
This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> invalid.
For example, in mathematics, there are a number of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements that must either be True of False, there >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is no possible middle ground, but these statements >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have not been shown to be provable or disprovable. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An example of this is the 3x+1 problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to assume.
Analytical expressions of language are verified to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true entirely on the basis of their meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a cat is the windows of an office building you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are simply wrong.
Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something already defined in the system, especially to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong. That violates the rules of Formal Logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC. >>>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
But is a different branch than your Epistemology with
different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses defines >>>>>>>>>>> things differently than what you want to use.
Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth
preserving operations to premises that are known to be true >>>>>>>>>> (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the semantic
relevance that is maintained in the syllogism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure
then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet >>>>>>>>>> still requires true preserving operations to be applied on the >>>>>>>>>> basis of semantic relevance.
Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole world >>>>>>>>>> agrees is
Find, you are on your own.
Things an ignoramus would say:
YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the >>>>>>>>> basic principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to >>>>>>>>> discuss it.When everything that you learn you learn by only rote
understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow.
I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which
correct reasoning is based.
Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all
of Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is
useless.
Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100% directly >>>>>> opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any less peripheral.
You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic
underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory
peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth used
in Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral field, which CAN'T
change the definition of Truth it uses, because it has inhereted it
from its
(a) The halting problem proofs,
(b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
(c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
(d) The liar paradox
all suffer from the same foundational error.
I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely DIFFERENT
sort of issue,
When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of true
statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then all four of
the above examples lose their basis and cease to exist.
Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept that you
can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.
What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something can be
True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to be true, you
can't use it for the basis of a further proof.
Within the body of analytic knowledge an expression of language is
only true when a connected set of true expressions prove that it is
true, thus true and unprovable cannot possibly co-exist.
Then the body of analytic knowledge (or at least your interpreation of
it) can't deal with the body of knowledge of Mathematics, (and related
logic families) as they allow for a statement to be True without needing
to be connected to a proof. PERIOD.
On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:Lets proceed from here. How do we know that a mathematical expression
On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:the truth.
On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth >>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to premises that are known to be true >>>>>>>>>>>> (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the semantic >>>>>>>>>>>> relevance that is maintained in the syllogism:
On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> geometry.On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:WRONG. Formal;
On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:Every expression of language does not count as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true until after it has been proven. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only two ways to determine if an analytical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language is true. It is an axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that assigned the value of Boolean true. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by sound deduction that is ultimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anchored in axioms.
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you really got nothing better to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your time?
How about our H and the H" built from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Example:On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Every simulating halt decider that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly transitions to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Try to prove that a baby kitten is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal and not the windows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
WRONG. You aren't following the right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Try to actually PROVE your statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RED HERRING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just don't understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference betweeen FORMAL logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know it.
Halting problem undecidability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not ONE bit of formal prpof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have proven something, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to agree with you, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think that you understand this deep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your heart, which is why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on forums >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that don't require peer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You all know that what I say is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example exists >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A simulating halt decider that must abort >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where this input halts on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have shown the H must abort its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of H" or H will never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H <H"> we see that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We start at H".Q0 <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have said that H has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a non-halting
computation, and thus aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input and goes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
Thus we HAVE the counter example that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim does not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if H >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes to H.Qn for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple running opf H" applied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown that BECAUSE H <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to H".Qn and Halt, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus is not correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand anything about formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A claim that because someone hasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced a counter example means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just plain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unsond logic.
TTo claim something follows, 'by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the words' and not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical arguments, but only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you have done is PROVED that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal logic.
This is sort of understandable since you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have revealed that you goal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological statement, which isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a background to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you need to do to show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also shows that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly don't undstand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'.
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have terminal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer with little time left. I intend my HP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof rebuttal to be my legacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you already agreed that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological self-reference of the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem proofs makes these proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate I have no idea why you would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reversing course now.
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate.
Here is Flibble's reply:
Flibble is a well known crank and troll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are wasting your time acting as a crank and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking for support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem down to a single simple sentence. Try >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and find a single error of substance in my paper: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even take a moron.
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Truth can only be something that is proven, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then from that try to prove that Truth is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only something that csn be proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is incorrect, and thus your whole arguement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is invalid.
For example, in mathematics, there are a number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of statements that must either be True of False, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no possible middle ground, but these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements have not been shown to be provable or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disprovable. An example of this is the 3x+1 problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiom you need to assume.
Analytical expressions of language are verified to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true entirely on the basis of their meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say that a cat is the windows of an office building >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are simply wrong.
Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something already defined in the system, especially to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something wrong. That violates the rules of Formal Logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) That is already what analytical truth means: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of their meaning"
Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
But is a different branch than your Epistemology with >>>>>>>>>>>>> different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses >>>>>>>>>>>>> defines things differently than what you want to use. >>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >>>>>>>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
Logical entailment does not require premises to be true yet >>>>>>>>>>>> still requires true preserving operations to be applied on >>>>>>>>>>>> the basis of semantic relevance.
Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole >>>>>>>>>>>> world agrees is
Find, you are on your own.
Things an ignoramus would say:
YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding the >>>>>>>>>>> basic principles of Formal Logic, and are thus unqualified to >>>>>>>>>>> discuss it.When everything that you learn you learn by only rote
understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow.
I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which >>>>>>>>>> correct reasoning is based.
Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of all >>>>>>>>> of Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. That is >>>>>>>>> useless.
Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100%
directly opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any less >>>>>>>> peripheral.
You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic
underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory
peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth used >>>>>>> in Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral field, which
CAN'T change the definition of Truth it uses, because it has
inhereted it from its
(a) The halting problem proofs,
(b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
(c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
(d) The liar paradox
all suffer from the same foundational error.
I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely DIFFERENT
sort of issue,
When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of true
statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then all four
of the above examples lose their basis and cease to exist.
Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept that
you can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.
What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something can
be True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to be true,
you can't use it for the basis of a further proof.
Within the body of analytic knowledge an expression of language is
only true when a connected set of true expressions prove that it is
true, thus true and unprovable cannot possibly co-exist.
Then the body of analytic knowledge (or at least your interpreation
of it) can't deal with the body of knowledge of Mathematics, (and
related logic families) as they allow for a statement to be True
without needing to be connected to a proof. PERIOD.
is true aside from its proof that it is true?
We don't. But we might know that it is True or False, and can bifurcate
on that knowledge.
On 2/18/22 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:Lets proceed from here. How do we know that a mathematical
On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote:the truth.
On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to premises that are known to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> true (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic relevance that is maintained in the syllogism: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote:
(1) That is already what analytical truth means: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtue of their meaning"On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote:
That is a stipulated definition just like a "given" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in geometry.On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>WRONG. Formal;
On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Flibble is a well known crank and troll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be illegitimate.
On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:Have you really got nothing better to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with your time?
How about our H and the H" built from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Example:Every simulating halt decider that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly transitions to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WRONG. You aren't following the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Try to prove that a baby kitten is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an animal and not the windows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words.
Try to actually PROVE your statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RED HERRING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just don't understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference betweeen FORMAL logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have FAILED, but are too dumb to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Halting problem undecidability and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not ONE bit of formal prpof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
Maybe you can convince yourzelf that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have proven something, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to agree with you, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think that you understand this deep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in your heart, which is why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forums that don't require peer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You all know that what I say is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A simulating halt decider that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation where this input halts on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have shown the H must abort its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of H" or H will never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BUT, When we look at the actual behavoir >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H <H"> we see that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We start at H".Q0 <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we have said that H has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> is a non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input and goes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to H".Qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
Thus we HAVE the counter example that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you claim does not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H goes to H.Qn for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple running opf H" applied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just shown that BECAUSE H <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go to H".Qn and Halt, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its requirements, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and thus is not correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand anything about formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A claim that because someone hasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced a counter example means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plain unsond logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TTo claim something follows, 'by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the words' and not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical arguments, but only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you have done is PROVED that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of understandable since you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have revealed that you goal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological statement, which isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just don't have a background to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which Computation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theory uses.
So, you have just FAILED to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what you need to do to show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also shows that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly don't undstand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Propositions, the idea of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
/Flibble
According to medical science I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminal cancer with little time left. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my legacy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Since you already agreed that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological self-reference of the halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem proofs makes these proof >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> illegitimate I have no idea why you would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be reversing course now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is Flibble's reply: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are wasting your time acting as a crank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and looking for support
from other cranks.
I have boiled the error of the incompleteness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theorem down to a single simple sentence. Try >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and find a single error of substance in my paper: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it doesn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even take a moron.
Your logic is incorrect because you assume your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conclusion as a premise.
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that Truth can only be something that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven, and then from that try to prove that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth is only something that csn be proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is incorrect, and thus your whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguement is invalid.
For example, in mathematics, there are a number >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of statements that must either be True of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False, there is no possible middle ground, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> these statements have not been shown to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provable or disprovable. An example of this is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 3x+1 problem.
Every expression of language does not count as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true until after it has been proven. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only two ways to determine if an analytical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language is true. It is an axiom >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that assigned the value of Boolean true. It is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived by sound deduction that is ultimately >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anchored in axioms.
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axiom you need to assume.
Analytical expressions of language are verified to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be true entirely on the basis of their meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In these cases all disagreement is simply incorrect. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I say that a cat is an animal and you disagree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and say that a cat is the windows of an office >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> building you are simply wrong.
Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something already defined in the system, especially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to something wrong. That violates the rules of Formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
But is a different branch than your Epistemology with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines things differently than what you want to use. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >>>>>>>>>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth.
Logical entailment does not require premises to be true >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet still requires true preserving operations to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied on the basis of semantic relevance.
Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>> world agrees is
Find, you are on your own.
Things an ignoramus would say:
YOU have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding >>>>>>>>>>>>> the basic principles of Formal Logic, and are thusWhen everything that you learn you learn by only rote
unqualified to discuss it.
understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow.
I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon which >>>>>>>>>>>> correct reasoning is based.
Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings of >>>>>>>>>>> all of Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral field. >>>>>>>>>>> That is useless.
Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and
ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100%
directly opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any >>>>>>>>>> less peripheral.
You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic
underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory
peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of Truth >>>>>>>>> used in Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral field,
which CAN'T change the definition of Truth it uses, because it >>>>>>>>> has inhereted it from its
(a) The halting problem proofs,
(b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
(c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
(d) The liar paradox
all suffer from the same foundational error.
I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely
DIFFERENT sort of issue,
Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept that >>>>>>> you can only prove a conclusion from True Premises.
When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of true >>>>>>>> statements that necessarily derive true conclusions then all
four of the above examples lose their basis and cease to exist. >>>>>>>
What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something can >>>>>>> be True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to be true, >>>>>>> you can't use it for the basis of a further proof.
Within the body of analytic knowledge an expression of language is >>>>>> only true when a connected set of true expressions prove that it
is true, thus true and unprovable cannot possibly co-exist.
Then the body of analytic knowledge (or at least your interpreation
of it) can't deal with the body of knowledge of Mathematics, (and
related logic families) as they allow for a statement to be True
without needing to be connected to a proof. PERIOD.
expression is true aside from its proof that it is true?
We don't. But we might know that it is True or False, and can
bifurcate on that knowledge.
Yet the Gödel sentence proposed to be true and unprovable.
That cannot possibly be. If it is true then it is provably true
otherwise it is untrue (not the same as false).
The Godel sentence is more complicated then that. In essence the Godel sentence says the Godel sentence is can not be proven to be true
(without directly referencing th Godel sentence).
Either the sentence is True, then it can not be actually PROVEN true in
the system, since the sentence states, indirectly, that it is
unprovable. (The connection of the statement to itself is outside the
reach of the algerbra in question).
Thus, if it IS true, it must be unprovable.
On 2/18/22 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 7:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 8:09 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 7:02 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 6:32 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 5:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 5:41 PM, olcott wrote:Lets proceed from here. How do we know that a mathematical
On 2/18/2022 4:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:39 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 3:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 4:03 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 2:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 2:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 1:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 2/18/22 1:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 11:49 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 12:18 PM, olcott wrote:the truth.
Yes and when formal logic diverges from applying truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preserving operations to premises that are known to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true (sound deductive inference) on the basis of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic relevance that is maintained in the syllogism: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2/18/2022 11:08 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On 2/18/22 11:55 AM, olcott wrote:
On 2/18/2022 10:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 11:02 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/2022 9:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/18/22 9:55 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 10:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 11:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(1) That is already what analytical truth means: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Analytic propositions are true or not true solely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by virtue of their meaning"That is a stipulated definition just like a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "given" in geometry.Analytical expressions of language are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified to be true entirely on the basis of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their meaning.On 2/17/22 10:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 9:12 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:Every expression of language does not count >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as true until after it has been proven. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are only two ways to determine if an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analytical expression of language is true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is an axiom that assigned the value of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boolean true. It is derived by sound >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deduction that is ultimately anchored in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms.
On 2/17/2022 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/22 1:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/17/2022 12:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 07:00:26 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Flibble is a well known crank and troll. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is Flibble's reply: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Excpe that you HAVEN'T shown the proofs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be illegitimate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2/17/22 12:36 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 11:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:54 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Have you really got nothing better to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with your time? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about our H and the H" built >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Example: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A simulating halt decider that must >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation where this input halts on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own without being aborted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2/16/22 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 10:17 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/22 11:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/16/2022 9:56 PM, Richard >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every simulating halt decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that must abort the simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of its input to prevent its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite simulation correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> transitions to its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRONG. You aren't following the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right definitions. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to actually PROVE your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Try to prove that a baby kitten >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is an animal and not the windows >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an office building. It is all >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the simple meaning of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Every simulating halt decider that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must abort the simulation of its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to prevent its infinite >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation correctly transitions to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its reject state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
RED HERRING. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just don't understand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference betweeen FORMAL logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> systems and informal ones. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have FAILED, but are too dumb >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to know it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Halting problem undecidability >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and infinitely nested simulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (V3) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
Your monument to your stupidity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not ONE bit of formal prpof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Maybe you can convince yourzelf >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have proven something, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but if you want anyone who means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to agree with you, you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a VERY long wait. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think that you understand this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deep in your heart, which is why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just peddle your garbage on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forums that don't require peer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> review to make statements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You all know that what I say is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evidently true. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact that no counter-example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exists proves that I am correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You have shown the H must abort its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of H" or H will never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt. That is accepted. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BUT, When we look at the actual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavoir of H <H"> we see that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have the following trace: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We start at H".Q0 <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We go to H".Qx <H"> <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since H".Qx has a copy of H at it, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and we have said that H has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposedly correctly decided that H" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> is a non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and thus aborts its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input and goes to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.Qn, we know that at H" will go to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H".Qn
When H" goes to H".Qn, it Halts. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THus we have shown that H" <H"> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> non-halting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we have shown that H <H"> <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thus we HAVE the counter example >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you claim does not exist. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
H is WRONG about H <H"> <H"> because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if H goes to H.Qn for this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input, BY DEFINITION, it means that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simple running opf H" applied >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to <H"> must never halt, but we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just shown that BECAUSE H <H"> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <H"> goes to H.Qn, that H"<H"> will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also go to H".Qn and Halt, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus H has violated its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements, and thus is not correct. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
You have just shown that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand anything about formal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic or how to prove something. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A claim that because someone hasn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> produced a counter example means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your statement must be true is just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plain unsond logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TTo claim something follows, 'by the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning of the words' and not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being able to show the actual FORMAL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions being used to make >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that claim, is just unsound logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FORMAL LOGIC doesn't accept crude >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical arguments, but only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal step by step proofs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All you have done is PROVED that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't understand what you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing, and you don't understand how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to use formal logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is sort of understandable since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you have revealed that you goal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just to try to establish an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Epistemological statement, which isn't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even a field of "Formal Logic', but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy, so if that is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field you are used to talking in, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you just don't have a background to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handle Formal Logic, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Computation Theory uses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So, you have just FAILED to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what you need to do to show >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something in COmputation Theory, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which also shows that you don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really understand Epistimology, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you clearly don't undstand the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concept of the Knowing of the Truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of Propositions, the idea of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual 'Facts'. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
FAIL.
/Flibble >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
According to medical science I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminal cancer with little time left. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I intend my HP proof rebuttal to be my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> legacy.
Since you already agreed that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pathological self-reference of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem proofs makes these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof illegitimate I have no idea why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you would be reversing course now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are wasting your time acting as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crank and looking for support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from other cranks. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have boiled the error of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompleteness theorem down to a single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simple sentence. Try and find a single >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error of substance in my paper: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333907915_Proof_that_Wittgenstein_is_correct_about_Godel
Even a bot can be a mere naysayer it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't even take a moron. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your logic is incorrect because you assume >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your conclusion as a premise. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You use the WRONG definition of Truth, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that Truth can only be something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is proven, and then from that try to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prove that Truth is only something that csn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be proven.
This is incorrect, and thus your whole >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguement is invalid. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For example, in mathematics, there are a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of statements that must either be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> True of False, there is no possible middle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground, but these statements have not been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shown to be provable or disprovable. An >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example of this is the 3x+1 problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can you PROVE that statement? or is this just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a axiom you need to assume. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
WRONG. Formal;
In these cases all disagreement is simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect.
If I say that a cat is an animal and you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree and say that a cat is the windows of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> office building you are simply wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except that you can't 'stipulate' a definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for something already defined in the system, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially to something wrong. That violates the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules of Formal Logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic%E2%80%93synthetic_distinction
Which is a definition in PHILOSOPHY, not FORMAL LOGIC. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logic is a branch of philosophy
https://www.theedadvocate.org/need-know-education-understanding-4-main-branches-philosophy/#:~:text=The%20four%20main%20branches%20of%20philosophy%20are,epistemology%2C%20axiology%2C%20and%20logic.
But is a different branch than your Epistemology with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different rules. Formal Logic, which mathematics uses >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defines things differently than what you want to use. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism#Basic_structure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then formal logic errs and diverges from truth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Logical entailment does not require premises to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true yet still requires true preserving operations to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be applied on the basis of semantic relevance. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just says that YOU don't agree with what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whole world agrees is
Find, you are on your own.
Things an ignoramus would say:
YOU have shown yourself to be incapable ofWhen everything that you learn you learn by only rote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding cannot possibly get any more shallow. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
understanding the basic principles of Formal Logic, and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are thus unqualified to discuss it.
I am discussing the philosophical underpinnings upon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which correct reasoning is based.
Then you are doing it at the wrong place.
If you disagree with the fundamental logic underpinnings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of all of Formal Logic, you don't start in a peripheral >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> field. That is useless.
Philosophical foundationalism is the ultimate basis and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground-of-being of correct reasoning and logic, thus 100% >>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly opposite of peripheral. It cannot possibly be any >>>>>>>>>>>>>> less peripheral.
You don't read very well I see. I wasn't calling the logic >>>>>>>>>>>>> underpinnings peripheral, I was calling Computation Theory >>>>>>>>>>>>> peripheral. If you want to challenge the definition of >>>>>>>>>>>>> Truth used in Formal Logic, you don't work in a peripheral >>>>>>>>>>>>> field, which CAN'T change the definition of Truth it uses, >>>>>>>>>>>>> because it has inhereted it from its
(a) The halting problem proofs,
(b) Gödel's 1931 incompleteness theorem,
(c) The Tarski Undefinability theorem and
(d) The liar paradox
all suffer from the same foundational error.
I will point out that the liar's paradox is a completely >>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT sort of issue,
When analytical truth is understood to be connected sets of >>>>>>>>>>>> true statements that necessarily derive true conclusions >>>>>>>>>>>> then all four of the above examples lose their basis and >>>>>>>>>>>> cease to exist.
Except that it doesn't. Formal Logic IS built on the concept >>>>>>>>>>> that you can only prove a conclusion from True Premises. >>>>>>>>>>>
What is isn't built on that Truth has to be proven. Something >>>>>>>>>>> can be True even if not proven, but if you can't prove it to >>>>>>>>>>> be true, you can't use it for the basis of a further proof. >>>>>>>>>>>
Within the body of analytic knowledge an expression of
language is only true when a connected set of true expressions >>>>>>>>>> prove that it is true, thus true and unprovable cannot
possibly co-exist.
Then the body of analytic knowledge (or at least your
interpreation of it) can't deal with the body of knowledge of >>>>>>>>> Mathematics, (and related logic families) as they allow for a >>>>>>>>> statement to be True without needing to be connected to a
proof. PERIOD.
expression is true aside from its proof that it is true?
We don't. But we might know that it is True or False, and can
bifurcate on that knowledge.
Yet the Gödel sentence proposed to be true and unprovable.
That cannot possibly be. If it is true then it is provably true
otherwise it is untrue (not the same as false).
The Godel sentence is more complicated then that. In essence the
Godel sentence says the Godel sentence is can not be proven to be
true (without directly referencing th Godel sentence).
Either the sentence is True, then it can not be actually PROVEN
true in the system, since the sentence states, indirectly, that it
is unprovable. (The connection of the statement to itself is
outside the reach of the algerbra in question).
Thus, if it IS true, it must be unprovable.
That is exactly the same as the liar paradox:
No, it isn't.
This sentence is not true. (Is indeed not true).
This sentence cannot be proven. (Is indeed unprovable).
The key is that the liar paradox directly refers to the sentence in
question.
The Godel sentence doesn't, it refers to the sentence by reference to
properties that can't be directly mapped within the algerbra, but can
with some meta-analysis. You don't seem to understand the difference.
This is just like the fact that H^ does NOT have any self-reference
in it, the machine H^ does absolutely nothing to refer to itself,
(and thus, the algorithm in H/H^ can't base anything on there being a
self-reference)
THe key is that H^ can take any machines description as its input, so
we can just happen to give it the representation of itself. This is
also NOT a self-reference, the input doesn't somehow encode the
statement 'look at yourself', it just happens to match the machine it
is being given to.
Gödel expressly said that the liar paradox can be used to derive his
same result, directly quoted on page 7:
Right, he started with the basis of the liar's paradox, but by
changing how it refers to itself, it removes the issue. Note also,
Not Provable is not the same as If False (except by your faulty logic).
LP := ~True(LP)
is isomorphic to
G := ~Provable(G)
Both specify an infinite a cycle that Prolog would reject.
First, Prolog is NOT the standard to measure by.
Second, True(x) and Provable(x) are DIFFERENT attributes.
Third, THe Godel Sentence is NOT ~Proveable(G), but
G := ~Provable(x) with a logic system that connects x to G in an
indirect way that is only detectable outside the logic system.
That is an important point that you don't seem to understand.
--The liar paradox and Gödel's G are simply not truth bearers in the
same way that the sentence: "What time is it?" is not a truth bearer.
No self-contradictory expression of language is ever a truth bearer.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 365 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 26:18:51 |
Calls: | 7,769 |
Files: | 12,905 |
Messages: | 5,749,292 |