Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<oPWcnWuwI5yh87P7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 15:41:48 +0000 Subject: Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <uvq359$1doq3$4@i2pn2.org> <uvrbvs$2acf7$1@dont-email.me> <uvs70t$1h01f$1@i2pn2.org> <uvsgcl$2i80k$1@dont-email.me> <uvsj4v$1h01e$1@i2pn2.org> <uvubo2$34nh3$1@dont-email.me> <uvvsap$3i5q8$1@dont-email.me> <v00mf6$3nu0r$1@dont-email.me> <v02gu5$6quf$1@dont-email.me> <v038om$bitp$2@dont-email.me> <v05b0k$sivu$1@dont-email.me> <v05r5e$vvml$2@dont-email.me> <v05vl4$1165d$1@dont-email.me> <v0679k$12sq2$1@dont-email.me> <v07r2j$1h57l$1@dont-email.me> <v08gn4$1lpta$2@dont-email.me> <v0ag7u$27jkb$1@dont-email.me> <v0b8np$2d4ja$1@dont-email.me> <v0c317$2538n$1@i2pn2.org> <v0c7fn$2k0tc$1@dont-email.me> <v0d3h1$2t938$1@dont-email.me> <v0doho$31mkn$2@dont-email.me> <v0forg$3j1dk$1@dont-email.me> <v0gblt$3nknm$1@dont-email.me> <v0icoj$8qvb$1@dont-email.me> <v0iv76$cu99$2@dont-email.me> <v0l1pl$v0o0$1@dont-email.me> <v0lhs5$12aq4$2@dont-email.me> <yCedna-S7dQuwLP7nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v0lnkq$13iqu$1@dont-email.me> From: Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 08:41:50 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <v0lnkq$13iqu$1@dont-email.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <oPWcnWuwI5yh87P7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> Lines: 296 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-XKUSyGMBndUdcYPCqUv1NgV63Wy0OWm9IZBhS/caeCLLPyym56cyThXn5itZqnpTNSMOYLQH0dyJt99!Ea0rONHjkj/sQBp0ZLRns2Z+EtxVZ01L8D1Lvx6v+HgJ3x+zLz5h8Sf01+EDlb4P3bgapWCguhc= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 14750 On 04/28/2024 07:48 AM, olcott wrote: > On 4/28/2024 9:31 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: >> On 04/28/2024 06:10 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 4/28/2024 3:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-04-27 13:39:50 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 4/27/2024 3:24 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-04-26 13:54:05 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/26/2024 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-04-25 14:15:20 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/25/2024 3:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-04-25 00:17:57 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========