Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)--
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 12:17:20 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 176
Message-ID: <v0noj0$1li21$1@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 11:17:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="10e1451e65cafef29a572281d306f9b3";
	logging-data="1755201"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2Ut5+//s+e27OAd69zuh2"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:EEj2OFU5FiNRwaz+tZSpNifW8so=
Bytes: 10441

On 2024-04-28 13:10:29 +0000, olcott said:

> 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.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> All these same people also know the computable functions only
>>>>>>>>> operate on their inputs and are not allowed to consider anything
>>>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion
>>>>>>>>> of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there
>>>>>>>>> exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an
>>>>>>>>> input of the function domain it can return the corresponding output.
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> When the definition of a halt decider contradicts the definition of
>>>>>>>>> a computable function they can't both be right.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> When the definitions of a term contradicts the definition of another term
>>>>>>>> then both of them are wrong. A correct definition does not contradict
>>>>>>>> anything other than a different definition of the same term.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *Wrong*
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That "Wrong" is wrong as it refers to a true statement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>  >>> then both of them are wrong.
>>>>> No it only proves that at least one of them are wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> A correct definition cannot contradict any other sentence, including
>>>> other defintions as well as any true and false claims. If a "defintion"
>>>> contradicts something then it is not really a definition.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> *That is not the way that it works*
>> 
>> Yes, it is. A correct definition does not claim anything, so it cannot
>> contradict anything.
>> 
>>> If a pair of existing definitions
>>> contradict each other then at least one of them is incorrect.
>> 
>> If a definition contradicts anything then it is incorrect.
>> If both of them contradict something then both are incorrect.
>> 
> 
> Are you actually paying attention or just glancing at a few
> words and then spouting off something?

No reason to actually pay attention as long as observed errors remain
uncorrected.

-- 
Mikko