Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 21:16:00 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 229 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 04:16:02 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="582e37b572b2a71d2b4cb5a79c660258"; logging-data="2922014"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18c+8b/kU2Sctd14KA6J7Ft" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:lPfAPV2kdBtq+eCS/fhojR9kHIU= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Bytes: 10885 On 4/24/2024 9:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/24/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/24/2024 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/24/24 8:17 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 4/24/2024 6:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 4/24/24 11:33 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 4/24/2024 3:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-04-23 14:31:00 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 4/23/2024 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 17:37:55 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 10:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-22 14:10:54 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/22/2024 4:35 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-21 14:44:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 2:57 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-20 15:20:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 2:54 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-19 18:04:48 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we create a three-valued logic system that has these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three values: {True, False, Nonsense} >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Such three valued logic has the problem that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tautology of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ordinary propositional logic cannot be trusted to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true. For >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, in ordinary logic A ∨ ¬A is always true. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some ordinary proofs of ordinary theorems are no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you need to accept the possibility that a theory that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is complete >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ordinary logic is incomplete in your logic. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I only used three-valued logic as a teaching device. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whenever an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression of language has the value of {Nonsense} then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejected and not allowed to be used in any logical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> operations. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is basically invalid input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot teach because you lack necessary skills. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't need any teaching device. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is too close to ad homimen. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you think my reasoning is incorrect then point to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> error >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in my reasoning. Saying that in your opinion I am a bad >>>>>>>>>>>>>> teacher >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is too close to ad hominem because it refers to your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> opinion of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> me and utterly bypasses any of my reasoning. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it isn't. You introduced youtself as a topic of >>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion so >>>>>>>>>>>>> you are a legitimate topic of discussion. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't claim that there be any reasoning, incorrect or >>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim I am a bad teacher you must point out what is >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong with >>>>>>>>>>>> the lesson otherwise your claim that I am a bad teacher is >>>>>>>>>>>> essentially >>>>>>>>>>>> an as hominem attack. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are not a teacher, bad or otherwise. That you lack skills >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> happen to be necessary for teaching is obvious from you postings >>>>>>>>>>> here. A teacher needs to understand human psychology but you >>>>>>>>>>> don't. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You may be correct that I am a terrible teacher. >>>>>>>>>> None-the-less Mathematicians might not have very much >>>>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>>>> of the link between proof theory and computability. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sume mathematicians do have very much understanding of that. >>>>>>>>> But that >>>>>>>>> link is not needed for understanding and solving problems >>>>>>>>> separately >>>>>>>>> in the two areas. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When I refer to rejecting an invalid input math would seem to >>>>>>>>>> construe >>>>>>>>>> this as nonsense, where as computability theory would totally >>>>>>>>>> understand. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> People working on computability theory do not understand >>>>>>>>> "invalid input" >>>>>>>>> as "impossible input". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The proof then shows, for any program f that might determine >>>>>>>> whether >>>>>>>> programs halt, that a "pathological" program g, called with some >>>>>>>> input, >>>>>>>> can pass its own source and its input to f and then specifically >>>>>>>> do the >>>>>>>> opposite of what f predicts g will do. No f can exist that >>>>>>>> handles this >>>>>>>> case, thus showing undecidability. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem# >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So then they must believe that there exists an H that does >>>>>>>> correctly >>>>>>>> determine the halt status of every input, some inputs are simply >>>>>>>> more difficult than others, no inputs are impossible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That "must" is false as it does not follow from anything. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure it does. If there are no "impossible" inputs that entails >>>>>> that all inputs are possible. When all inputs are possible then >>>>>> the halting problem proof is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D* >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D >>>>>> >>>>>> Everyone that objects to the statement that H(D,D) correctly >>>>>> determines the halt status of its inputs say that believe that >>>>>> H(D,D) must report on the behavior of the D(D) that invokes H(D,D). >>>>> >>>>> Right, because that IS the definition of a Halt Decider. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Everyone here takes the definition of a halt decider to be >>>> required to determine the halt status of the program that >>>> invokes this halt decider, knowing full well that the program >>>> that invokes this halt decider IS NOT ITS INPUT. >>> >>> And what you don't seem to understand is that it *IS*. >>> >>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is to decide on the program >>> described by it input. >>> >>> What else could that mean but the program described by the input? >>> >>>> >>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only >>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything >>>> else. >>> >>> First, we don't know that a Halt Decider is a "Computable Function" >>> and in fact, that is the question, is the Halting Function computable? >>> >>> Second, the input IS a "Description of the program" to be decided on, >>> so that IS the input. >>> >>> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "description" >>> >> >> Everyone else is wrong about this when they allow a description >> to include the program that invokes the halt decider. > > > Why? ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========