Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:07:03 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <vfdrb8$2mcdg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <veoift$29dtl$2@dont-email.me> <veoq3j$2aqp2$1@dont-email.me>
 <vf716u$1607j$1@dont-email.me> <vf7ks8$1d1vt$1@dont-email.me>
 <vf8eu5$1h5mj$2@dont-email.me> <vfdk8g$2lgl1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2024 18:07:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cdc93c27f7b70ee2ca5bf91b23fec445";
	logging-data="2830768"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+L93NhVct9jX8bskqM97CP"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:15jk+daiSq11AP5iiaLE08KAVVE=
In-Reply-To: <vfdk8g$2lgl1$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241024-2, 10/24/2024), Outbound message
Bytes: 3800

On 10/24/2024 9:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-10-22 15:04:37 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 10/22/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-22 02:04:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 10/16/2024 11:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-10-16 14:27:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole notion of undecidability is anchored in ignoring the 
>>>>>> fact that
>>>>>> some expressions of language are simply not truth bearers.
>>>>>
>>>>> A formal theory is undecidable if there is no Turing machine that
>>>>> determines whether a formula of that theory is a theorem of that
>>>>> theory or not. Whether an expression is a truth bearer is not
>>>>> relevant. Either there is a valid proof of that formula or there
>>>>> is not. No third possibility.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> After being continually interrupted by emergencies
>>>> interrupting other emergencies...
>>>>
>>>> If the answer to the question: Is X a formula of theory Y
>>>> cannot be determined to be yes or no then the question
>>>> itself is somehow incorrect.
>>>
>>> There are several possibilities.
>>>
>>> A theory may be intentionally incomplete. For example, group theory
>>> leaves several important question unanswered. There are infinitely
>>> may different groups and group axioms must be true in every group.
>>>
>>> Another possibility is that a theory is poorly constructed: the
>>> author just failed to include an important postulate.
>>>
>>> Then there is the possibility that the purpose of the theory is
>>> incompatible with decidability, for example arithmetic.
>>>
>>>> An incorrect question is an expression of language that
>>>> is not a truth bearer translated into question form.
>>>>
>>>> When "X a formula of theory Y" is neither true nor false
>>>> then "X a formula of theory Y" is not a truth bearer.
>>>
>>> Whether AB = BA is not answered by group theory but is alwasy
>>> true or false about specific A and B and universally true in
>>> some groups but not all.
>>
>> See my most recent reply to Richard it sums up
>> my position most succinctly.
> 
> We already know that your position is uninteresting.
> 

Don't want to bother to look at it (AKA uninteresting) is not at
all the same thing as the corrected foundation to computability
does not eliminate undecidability. It does eliminate undecidability
and not bothering to look at it is no actual rebuttal.



-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer