Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<v0m4c5$16k3h$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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 13:26:12 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 385 Message-ID: <v0m4c5$16k3h$3@dont-email.me> References: <uvq0sg$21m7a$1@dont-email.me> <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> <v0lota$2g493$2@i2pn2.org> <v0lptb$14579$1@dont-email.me> <v0lsj7$2g493$3@i2pn2.org> <v0lvu4$158cq$3@dont-email.me> <DPednUwvb5HjDLP7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@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 20:26:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="5b5cf6fc6ad4bf43d1327b7299fd7236"; logging-data="1265777"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wW2jYRGZ6NvWDiKEzvXwZ" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:ntbxIdv+4fmOIwyUS63SJe2Fx1Q= Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <DPednUwvb5HjDLP7nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> Bytes: 18833 On 4/28/2024 1:12 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On 04/28/2024 10:10 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 4/28/2024 11:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 4/28/24 11:27 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 4/28/2024 10:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 4/28/24 10:48 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. ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========