1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.AI.PHILOSOPHY

  • Correcting the notion of provability using purely generic terms

    From olcott@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Thu Mar 3 21:33:57 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    On 3/3/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/3/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:


    Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a categorical
    error. What I pointed out is categorically true.

    If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.

    I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.


    I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of correctness.


    But you don't use the CORRECT meaning of the words, and you have just admitted you don't KNOW some of the meanings.


    I will make my terms purely generic:

    When-so-ever one is proving that one expression of language is a
    necessary consequence of other expressions of language one must only
    apply truth preserving operations beginning with the initial set of
    expressions of language in the derivation of the final expression of
    language.

    The above is how provability works within correct reasoning.



    Thus that statement is a LIE, which seems to be your natural langugage.

    When in a technical field, you must use the TECHNICAL meaning of the
    words, or you are likely incorrect.


    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Thu Mar 3 23:18:19 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    On 3/3/2022 10:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/3/22 10:33 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/3/2022 9:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/3/22 9:57 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 3/3/2022 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 3/3/22 9:32 PM, olcott wrote:


    Flibble pointed out the the halting problem proofs are a
    categorical error. What I pointed out is categorically true.

    If you are using Fibble as your 'Expert' you are in trouble.

    I have been asking for REPUTABLE sources.


    I always use the meaning of words as the ultimate proof of correctness. >>>>

    But you don't use the CORRECT meaning of the words, and you have just
    admitted you don't KNOW some of the meanings.


    I will make my terms purely generic:

    When-so-ever one is proving that one expression of language is a
    necessary consequence of other expressions of language one must only
    apply truth preserving operations beginning with the initial set of
    expressions of language in the derivation of the final expression of
    language.

    The above is how provability works within correct reasoning.

    Right, to PROVE something, you need to use VALID logic on PROVEN premises.

    This does NOT mean that something can't be true even if it is not provable.

    Truth and Provable are different concepts.

    Remember, not all Truths in Mathematics are Analytic Truths, so not all Truths are Provable.
    All truths in mathematics are entirely based on relations between
    expressions of language.

    There are only two kinds of truth:
    (1) Truth expressed as relations between expressions of language
    (2) Truth expressed as relations between expressions of language and
    sensory stimulus.

    Thus provable only verifies two types of things:
    (1) The relation between expressions of language exists.
    "A dog is an animal." is true

    (2) The relation between expressions of language and sensory stimulus
    exists. "I am not hearing a dog bark right now." is true
    --
    Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)