Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?G=C3=B6del=27s_actual_proof_and_deriving_all_of_the_digit?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?s_of_the_actual_G=C3=B6del_numbers?=
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 16:52:57 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 115
Message-ID: <vfh3vp$3bkkv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ves6p1$2uoln$1@dont-email.me>
 <647fe917c6bc0cfc78083ccf927fe280acdf2f9d@i2pn2.org>
 <vetq7u$3b8r2$1@dont-email.me>
 <522ecce215e636ddb7c9a1f75bff1ba466604cc5@i2pn2.org>
 <veuvt9$3hnjq$1@dont-email.me>
 <87634d01e18903c744d109aaca3a20b9ce4278bb@i2pn2.org>
 <vev8gg$3me0u$1@dont-email.me>
 <eb38c4aff9c8bc250c49892461ac25bfccfe303f@i2pn2.org>
 <vf051u$3rr97$1@dont-email.me>
 <e3f28689429722f86224d0d736115e4d1895299b@i2pn2.org>
 <vf1hun$39e3$1@dont-email.me>
 <dedb2801cc230a4cf689802934c4b841ae1a29eb@i2pn2.org>
 <vf1stu$8h0v$1@dont-email.me>
 <592109c757262c48aaca517a829ea1867913316b@i2pn2.org>
 <vf37qt$fbb3$1@dont-email.me> <vf5430$sjvj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vf5mat$v6n5$4@dont-email.me> <vf7jbl$1cr7h$1@dont-email.me>
 <vf8b8p$1gkf5$3@dont-email.me> <vfa8iu$1ulea$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfassk$21k64$4@dont-email.me> <vfdjc7$2lcba$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfdlij$2ll17$1@dont-email.me> <vffj9k$33eod$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfg6j4$36im7$1@dont-email.me>
 <dcc4d67737371dbac58b18d718b2d3b6613f1b24@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:52:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7cff08f8c76bdb8ebdc0a44831f3107c";
	logging-data="3527327"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Q33GtPEFHjCEmhuN8feuL"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IaconsIoRoyAHobvzzC3YdA0D8A=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 241025-4, 10/25/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <dcc4d67737371dbac58b18d718b2d3b6613f1b24@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7291

On 10/25/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 10/25/24 9:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/25/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-10-24 14:28:35 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 10/24/2024 8:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-10-23 13:15:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/23/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-22 14:02:01 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/22/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-21 13:52:28 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/21/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-10-20 15:32:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The actual barest essence for formal systems and computations
>>>>>>>>>>>> is finite string transformation rules applied to finite 
>>>>>>>>>>>> strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Before you can start from that you need a formal theory that
>>>>>>>>>>> can be interpreted as a theory of finite strings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not at all. The only theory needed are the operations
>>>>>>>>>> that can be performed on finite strings:
>>>>>>>>>> concatenation, substring, relational operator ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You may try with an informal foundation but you need to make sure
>>>>>>>>> that it is sufficicently well defined and that is easier with a
>>>>>>>>> formal theory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The minimal complete theory that I can think of computes
>>>>>>>>>> the sum of pairs of ASCII digit strings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That is easily extended to Peano arithmetic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As a bottom layer you need some sort of logic. There must be 
>>>>>>>>> unambifuous
>>>>>>>>> rules about syntax and inference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I already wrote this in C a long time ago.
>>>>>>>> It simply computes the sum the same way
>>>>>>>> that a first grader would compute the sum.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have no idea how the first grade arithmetic
>>>>>>>> algorithm could be extended to PA.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Basically you define that the successor of X is X + 1. The only
>>>>>>> primitive function of Peano arithmetic is the successor. Addition
>>>>>>> and multiplication are recursively defined from the successor
>>>>>>> function. Equality is often included in the underlying logic but
>>>>>>> can be defined recursively from the successor function and the
>>>>>>> order relation is defined similarly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, the details are not important, only that it can be done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First grade arithmetic can define a successor function
>>>>>> by merely applying first grade arithmetic to the pair
>>>>>> of ASCII digits strings of [0-1]+ and "1".
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system 
>>>>>> of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure 
>>>>>> (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the 
>>>>>> arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal 
>>>>>> system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that 
>>>>>> are true, but that are unprovable within the system.
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we boil this down to its first-grade arithmetic foundation
>>>>>> this would seem to mean that there are some cases where the
>>>>>> sum of a pair of ASCII digit strings cannot be computed.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it does not. Incompleteness theorem does not apply to artihmetic
>>>>> that only has addition but not multiplication.
>>>>>
>>>>> The incompleteness theorem is about theories that have quantifiers.
>>>>> A specific arithmetic expression (i.e, with no variables of any kind)
>>>>> always has a well defined value.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So lets goes the next step and add multiplication to the algorithm:
>>>> (just like first grade arithmetic we perform multiplication
>>>> on arbitrary length ASCII digit strings just like someone would
>>>> do with pencil and paper).
>>>>
>>>> Incompleteness cannot be defined. until we add variables and
>>>> quantification: There exists an X such that X * 11 = 132.
>>>> Every detail of every step until we get G is unprovable in F.
>>>
>>> Incompleteness is easier to define if you also add the power operator
>>> to the arithmetic. Otherwise the expressions of provability and
>>> incompleteness are more complicated. They become much simpler if
>>> instead of arithmetic the fundamental theory is a theory of finite
>>> strings. As you already observed, arithmetic is easy to do with
>>> finite strings. The opposite is possible but much more complicated.
>>>
>>
>> The power operator can be built from repeated operations of
>> the multiply operator. Will a terabyte be enough to store
>> the Gödel numbers?
>>
> 
> Likely depends on how big of a system you are making F.
> 

I am proposing actually doing Gödel's actual proof and
deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers.

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