Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Simply defining =?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6del?= Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?)
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 03:45:48 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <87v9ikcjdv.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References: <u8KdneInk71rAp_CnZ2dnUU7-bPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <rejgv8$kj2$1@dont-email.me> <ro6dnRSc2KKXVpDCnZ2dnUU7-RXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87zh820x98.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <VLWdnefp55Dfu5LCnZ2dnUU7-KmdnZ2d@giganews.com> <87imeo1wov.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <DKmdnUY8tKTHB5LCnZ2dnUU7-fXNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87a7001bhr.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <KdKdnbB7kbtpFI3CnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87sgdrz49w.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <F5qdnUiiueGBVY3CnZ2dnUU7-Q-dnZ2d@giganews.com> <874kq7yug9.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <4dKdnXavpI9eu4zCnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87ft9qy3cn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <Z8adnfrv_vy9uY_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <87imelefjh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <qeWdnZEQJplh-I_CnZ2dnUU7-IPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <87d04ser16.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <EaydnYuinvhBqY7CnZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> <875zakwk73.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <osqdnaSxPtZWPI7CnZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="419824d348f2f77b7066da699ffe6b2b"; logging-data="4642"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+dIp2FFHd/PZa+ZVEwcI0SOIfFgSwoPxk="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/XKhhx5yX9VO2/kALKxyowsM4uo= sha1:kSEIUlXU2LhCU/VSqSzuthH1Ihc=
X-BSB-Auth: 1.5480fe7585e6a19a16ca.20200719034548BST.87v9ikcjdv.fsf@bsb.me.uk
Xref: csiph.com comp.theory:21796

olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:

> On 7/18/2020 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>> On 7/18/2020 11:17 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>> On 7/17/2020 9:13 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>> <cut>
>>>>>>> Undecidability as it is currently used in math and computer science is
>>>>>>> like the problem of deciding which of the two Boolean values represent
>>>>>>> the current time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You repeat this error frequently.  Turing machine halting is undecidable
>>>>>> because there is no TM that correctly determines the halting of every
>>>>>> encoded TM computation.  Every such encoding represents TM computation
>>>>>> that either halts or does not halt, so asking which is the case, in
>>>>>> every case, is nothing at all like asking "what time is it, true or
>>>>>> false?".  Every halting question is a simple matter of fact -- does it
>>>>>> halt or not.
<cut>
>>> Lets get back to exactly what the standard model of arithmetic is...
<cut>
>>
>> No, let's actually answer Ben's clear and unambiguous question rather
>> than moving the goalposts yet again.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
>
> The actual real point is not Q it is models of PA that Gödel used.

You introduced a false claim, one you have made often:

| Undecidability as it is currently used in math and computer science is
| like the problem of deciding which of the two Boolean values represent
| the current time.

Turing machine halting is undecidable because there is no TM that
correctly determines the halting of every encoded TM computation.  Do
you sill want to pretend that asking if some entirely properly specified
TM does or does not halt on some equally well-specified input is akin to
asking for the wrong sort of answer?

The decent thing to do would be to defend or retract the claim.
Remember, you chose to introduce this false claim, so tacking away now
because it is not "the real point" is... let's say... disingenuous.

-- 
Ben.