Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:04:27 +0200
Organization: -
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <vgb2bb$12eg7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vfli1h$fj8s$1@dont-email.me> <vflue8$3nvp8$2@i2pn2.org> <vfmd8m$k2m7$1@dont-email.me> <bcd82d9f8a987d3884220c0df7b8f7204cb9de3e@i2pn2.org> <vfmueh$mqn9$1@dont-email.me> <ff039b922cabbb6d44f90aa71a52d8c2f446b6ab@i2pn2.org> <vfo95k$11qs1$1@dont-email.me> <vfp8c0$3tobi$2@i2pn2.org> <vfpbtq$1837o$2@dont-email.me> <vfq4h9$1fo1n$1@dont-email.me> <vfqpi3$1iaob$4@dont-email.me> <vfqvjs$3v4c4$15@i2pn2.org> <vfr091$1k8im$1@dont-email.me> <vft4or$44tc$5@i2pn2.org> <vft9r1$25aio$9@dont-email.me> <vg2ban$37555$1@dont-email.me> <vg2gvo$37lpn$6@dont-email.me> <vg4q97$3np95$1@dont-email.me> <vg5386$3or7a$6@dont-email.me> <vg7o86$bk5f$1@dont-email.me> <vg80k1$d0a1$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2024 19:04:27 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7a8dfd79ce8b4380922c6465a90835f3";
	logging-data="1128967"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18DizhXx+vo/GIfcgIk22HP"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:X7y+L12DfQuMAfAz49SOaMNvw5g=
Bytes: 3187

On 2024-11-03 14:16:33 +0000, olcott said:

> On 11/3/2024 5:53 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-11-02 11:43:02 +0000, olcott said:
>> 
>>> On 11/2/2024 4:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-11-01 12:19:03 +0000, olcott said:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 11/1/2024 5:42 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-10-30 12:46:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ZFC only resolved Russell's Paradox because it tossed out
>>>>>>> the incoherent foundation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Naive_set_theory
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Actually Zermelo did it. The F and C are simply minor improvements on
>>>>>> other aspects of the theory.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thus establishing the precedent that replacing the foundational
>>>>> basis of a problem is a valid way to resolve that problem.
>>>> 
>>>> No, that does not follow. In particular, Russell's paradox is not a
>>>> problem, just an element of the proof that the naive set theory is
>>>> inconsistent. The problem then is to construct a consistent set
>>>> theory. Zermelo proposed one set theory and ZF and ZFC are two other
>>>> proposals.
>>> 
>>> My view is that the same kind of self-reference issue that
>>> showed naive set theory was inconsistent also shows that the
>>> current notion of a formal system is inconsistent.
>> 
>> From the proof of the exstence of Russell's set it is easy
>> to prove that 1 = 2. As long as no proof of 1 = 2 from a
>> self-reference in a formal system is shown there is no
>> reason to think that such system is inconsisten.
> 
> In other words you presume yourself to be all knowing about this.

As usual, your "In other words" is a lie.

-- 
Mikko