Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v0lve0$158cq$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory Subject: Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 12:01:51 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 310 Message-ID: <v0lve0$158cq$1@dont-email.me> References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <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> <oPWcnWuwI5yh87P7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 19:01:52 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236"; logging-data="1221018"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/DbzaYapY73Ul+bHHIIKuh" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:zr0i3b7kxM8VI59Y4w3CjRQ+yh8= In-Reply-To: <oPWcnWuwI5yh87P7nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 15330 On 4/28/2024 10:41 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > 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 ==========