Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #21465 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-07-05 22:52 -0500 |
| Last post | 2020-07-08 19:04 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 335 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (axiomatic basis of truth) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 22:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (axiomatic basis of truth) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-05 22:06 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (axiomatic basis of truth) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-05 23:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (axiomatic basis of truth) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-05 22:58 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (axiomatic basis of truth) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-06 00:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (axiomatic basis of truth) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-05 23:59 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (axiomatic basis of truth) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-06 11:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (axiomatic basis of truth) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-06 11:18 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (axiomatic basis of truth) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 13:13 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 15:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-07 14:17 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 15:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-07 14:50 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 17:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-07 18:27 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 19:43 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-07 19:28 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 21:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-07 21:29 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 22:57 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-08 12:27 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 14:19 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-10 10:39 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 08:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-10 08:03 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 09:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-10 12:41 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 09:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-07 21:52 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-07 23:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 ∃φ (φ ↔ T ⊬ φ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-07 22:43 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 00:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-07 23:39 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 00:54 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-08 00:14 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 10:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-08 09:50 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 11:09 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 11:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 11:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-09 06:56 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-09 11:02 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-09 11:33 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-09 23:23 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-10 12:13 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-09 23:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 12:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-09 07:40 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-09 11:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-09 12:14 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-09 23:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-10 11:54 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-10 14:46 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 16:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-10 17:20 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 16:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 09:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 09:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-10 09:42 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 10:54 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-10 10:55 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-10 11:02 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 12:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-10 11:27 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 13:04 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-10 12:12 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 15:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-10 14:27 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 15:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-10 15:00 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 16:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 20:19 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-11 04:20 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-11 19:24 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-11 18:57 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (TRUTH BEARER DEFINED) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-11 22:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (TRUTH BEARER DEFINED) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-12 00:37 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 11:43 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-12 12:07 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 13:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-12 13:36 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 15:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 16:24 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-12 15:37 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 18:04 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-12 17:21 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 18:53 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-12 18:07 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 19:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-12 18:58 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 23:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-13 07:01 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 09:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-13 08:47 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 19:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 09:07 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 17:28 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (NATURE OF TRUTH ITSELF) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 19:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-10 19:21 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 13:35 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-11 12:25 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-11 19:05 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-12 14:10 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 13:24 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 14:04 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 18:48 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 17:22 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 19:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 19:32 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 22:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-13 08:05 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 19:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 19:11 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 09:43 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-14 08:57 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 10:22 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-14 09:30 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 10:38 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-15 11:24 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 19:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-15 20:38 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 16:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-16 16:01 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 19:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-16 18:40 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-13 23:48 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 10:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-14 09:20 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 10:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-14 09:36 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 10:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-14 11:25 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 10:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-15 11:04 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 19:07 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-15 18:42 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 12:10 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 11:46 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 16:35 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 15:19 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 23:19 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-16 22:49 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-17 00:34 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-17 01:04 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 17:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-17 16:16 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 18:59 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-18 03:13 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 22:01 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-18 17:17 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-18 12:43 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-18 15:08 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-18 20:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-19 03:45 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-19 11:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-19 11:05 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-19 12:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-19 11:30 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-19 12:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-19 20:51 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-19 15:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-20 02:44 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-20 12:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-21 01:52 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-20 21:35 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-20 19:59 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-21 10:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-21 10:00 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-21 19:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-21 17:57 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-22 09:07 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-22 02:03 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-22 09:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-23 00:30 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-22 09:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-19 22:23 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-20 10:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-20 10:50 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-17 12:16 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 17:04 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-17 17:09 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-18 00:22 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-13 13:05 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 10:07 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-13 20:01 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 12:24 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 [--Obvious Yet?--] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 14:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 18:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 17:46 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 09:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-14 09:53 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 10:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-13 23:42 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 18:45 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-14 01:26 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 22:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-14 17:00 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 18:15 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-15 02:56 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 21:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-14 20:30 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 23:13 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Mapping to Boolean) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 09:57 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-15 16:48 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 11:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-15 11:32 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 19:13 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-16 01:37 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 22:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-16 16:05 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 14:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 13:32 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 22:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 21:00 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-17 02:17 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 21:01 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-17 03:54 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 23:27 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-17 11:36 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 11:10 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-17 11:11 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 14:24 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-07-17 20:28 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 16:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-07-17 20:26 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 17:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-17 16:06 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 18:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-17 17:47 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-17 18:01 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 22:24 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-17 21:34 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 22:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-17 22:01 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-18 13:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-17 21:09 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-18 10:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-18 15:05 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-17 17:23 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 18:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-17 18:01 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 22:35 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-17 21:55 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-18 13:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-17 22:12 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 14:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-18 02:17 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Membership algorithm) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 21:53 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-15 18:23 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 11:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 11:21 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 13:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 13:10 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 22:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 21:04 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-17 12:10 +0100
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-07-17 11:50 +0000
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 17:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-17 17:40 -0600
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-17 17:46 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 17:07 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-18 00:30 +0100
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-07-18 02:21 +0000
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-18 16:19 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-17 22:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-18 16:12 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-18 11:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-15 20:25 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 16:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 14:31 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 22:45 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 21:10 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-16 15:58 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 22:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 21:18 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-16 22:38 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-16 00:35 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 18:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-16 01:16 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 19:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-15 17:44 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 20:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-16 02:19 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 22:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-16 16:08 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 14:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-16 13:12 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-16 22:37 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 17:52 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 21:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 20:11 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 22:48 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 21:38 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 00:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 22:26 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 00:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-07-14 14:41 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 10:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> - 2020-07-14 18:24 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-14 17:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> - 2020-07-15 18:08 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-15 18:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-12 17:30 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-12 19:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-12 18:53 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-12 23:48 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 00:58 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-13 13:07 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 14:12 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-13 15:32 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 15:06 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-14 00:56 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-07-13 23:26 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-13 16:10 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-13 09:57 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-13 13:12 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-10 12:53 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 16:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-10 15:06 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 17:21 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-07-10 15:58 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-10 18:01 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-11 04:10 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-11 19:13 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-08 12:39 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 23:37 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-07-09 00:40 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-09 09:38 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-09 09:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-07-09 12:15 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-09 15:10 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V27 (Simple enough yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 16:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V27 (Simple enough yet?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-07-09 07:02 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V27 (Simple enough yet?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-09 11:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Shell game) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-07-08 19:04 -0500
Page 8 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 17 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-16 23:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <4dKdnXavpI9eu4zCnZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #21718 |
On 7/16/2020 5:19 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>> On 7/16/2020 1:46 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>> On 7/15/2020 8:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 7/15/2020 1:04 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2020 1:25 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>> Since everyone here is indoctrinated into believing that Gödel is
>>>>>>>>>> correct I have to use different terms for provability so that people
>>>>>>>>>> will carefully analyze my reasoning and not simply dismiss it
>>>>>>>>>> out-of-hand on the basis of their indoctrination.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the best way to demonstrate that Gödel is
>>>>>>>>> incorrect would be to demonstrate a flaw in what he actually wrote.
>>>>>>>>> I haven't read everything you've written here, but I don't recall
>>>>>>>>> you ever directly quoting Gödel's proof.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not really. When we refute the enormously simplified key result of his
>>>>>>>> claim: true and unprovable can possibly coexist, then the steps that
>>>>>>>> he used to get to this key result are moot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've been asserting that for years, and nobody believes you
>>>>>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=%22true+and+unprovable%22+godel&btnG=&oq=%22true+and+unprovable%22
>>>>>
>>>>> 125 results. No, I'm not going to read them.
>>>>
>>>> 125 different people that all believe that Gödel showed that true and
>>>> unprovable formulas exists, and 125 > 0, thus "nobody believes you" is
>>>> proven to be false.
>>>
>>> Wait, what? Is that really what you meant to say? Gödel *did* show
>>> that true and unprovable formulas exist. Did you omit a "not"?
>>
>> OK that is even better. I thought that he only concluded that some
>> formulas are neither provable nor disprovable.
>
> Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems :
>
> 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. The
> second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first,
> shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
>
Show me where Gödel say that in his actual paper:
https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf
> Your "OK that is even better" remark seems to imply that you didn't know
> that, which is frankly staggering. You've spent years claiming to have
> refuted Gödel's proof, but you don't even know what he proved. >
>>> OK, "nobody believes you" was hyperbole. I've seen nobody posting here
>>> who believes that you've successfully refuted Gödel's proof. If you can
>>> cite an exception, I suppose it would be mildly interesting, but not
>>> particularly relevant other than to refute my statement. I'll gladly
>>> revise it to "Hardly anybody believes you".
>>
>> How can you show that Gödel really showed that true and unprovable
>> formulas exist. In other words and this is not merely an
>> interpretation that someone added later on.
>
> By reading and understanding his proof. I'm honestly not prepared
> to do that myself. I think that some other participants here have,
> and I'll let them comment further if they choose to do so.
>
> Here's another yes or no question: Have you read Gödel's proof?
I just posted a copy of his whole paper.
I already proved that he himself did not understand it because he
directly contradicted himself in his footnote 15.
>
>> The best way would be to quote his paper where he would say:
>> "I just proved that true and unprovable formulas exist".
>>
>> Even his use of natural language seems to be about as convoluted as he
>> can possibly make it. If he were to say: "I just proved that true and
>> unprovable formulas exist" it would take him at least fifteen pages.
>>
>>>>>>> Do you think that's going to change if you assert it just one
>>>>>>> more time? What is your goal here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whether it's the best way or not, surely *a* way to demonstrate
>>>>>>> that Gödel is incorrect would be to demonstrate a flaw in what he
>>>>>>> actually wrote. Not in some summary of his proof, but in his actual
>>>>>>> proof as he wrote it. Something like "In step 42, Gödel makes use
>>>>>>> of this assumption, but previously in step 23 he showed that that
>>>>>>> assumption does not hold in all cases". (That's a hypothetical
>>>>>>> example, of course.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> His mistake can only be seen through a refutation of the essence of
>>>>>> his conclusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, now that's an interesting assertion. Did you really mean "only"?
>>
>> Yes
>
> Well, I wasn't expecting that answer.
>
> You seem to be saying that it would *not* be possible to refute Gödel's
> proof by finding a specific flaw in it. Is that really what you mean?
Based on his incorrect foundation his conclusion would probably be
correct. I have been able to reconstruct enormously simpler examples of
self contradictory expressions that "prove" that their formal system is
"incomplete".
He admitted in his paper that any self-contradictory expression can be
used to derive the same proof:
14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
for a similar undecidability proof
>>>> "Needle in a hay stack"
>>>> When you are looking for a particular needle in a humongous stack of
>>>> needles it is very helpful to move this needle far away from all the
>>>> other needles or you can't even see it separately.
>>>
>>> And again, your response to a yes or no question does not include the
>>> word "yes" or "no".
>>>
>>>>> So are you saying that you *cannot* demonstrate that Gödel proof is
>>>>> incorrect by citing a specific error within the proof. It seems to me
>>>>> that that's equivalent to saying that Gödel's proof is correct. I'm
>>>>> sure that's not what you meant. Did you mean specifically that *you*
>>>>> cannot do that? I doubt that that's what you meant either.
>>>>
>>>> If Gödel's proof is correct except for a single key false assumption
>>>> then Gödel's proof is incorrect.
>>>
>>> And again.
>>>
>>>>> Are you saying that it's possible for every step of Gödel's proof
>>>>> to be valid, but for the proof as a whole to be invalid, yielding a
>>>>> false conclusion? If so, that's a remarkable assertion from someone
>>>>> who says that a complex system can be complete and consistent.
>>>>
>>>> A single false premise makes the conclusion unsound.
>>>
>>> And again. If I ask you a yes or no question, I will ignore any
>>> response that does not include the word "yes" or "no", or explain
>>> why neither "yes" nor "no" would be meaningful.
>>
>> I am fully refuting your general whole point as it can be applied to
>> Gödel or anything else.
>>
>> If it can be proved that a conclusion is incorrect then there must
>> have been some error somewhere in the reasoning that lead to the
>> conclusion. No need to even look at this reasoning as long as its
>> conclusion can be proved to be incorrect.
>
> You have not answered my question.
>
> Are you saying that it's possible for every step of Gödel's proof to be
> valid, but for the proof as a whole to be invalid, yielding a false
> conclusion? Yes or no, please.
Not quite. Every single step besides a single false premise.
>>>>> Do you believe there is a specific flaw in Gödel's proof?
>>>>> (This question is not about what that flaw is, just whether you
>>>>> think there is one.)
>>>>>
>>>> The definition of incompleteness is its flaw.
>>>
>>> I'll take that as a yes, but next time I'll ask you to include the
>>> word "yes" in your answer if that's what you mean.
>>>
>>> Really? Is that your whole problem with Gödel's proof, that you
>>> don't like the way he defines "incompleteness" (or more likely
>>> "Unvollständigkeit")? (Of course the concept existed before Gödel.)
>>
>> If he proved that there are true and unprovable formulas once you
>> understand how True(x) really works you will see that it is the same
>> as if he proved 3 > 7, utterly impossibly correct.
>
> Yes or no, please.
>
>>>> We could define "incomplete" as a term of the art of mathematics such
>>>> that every formal system that uses conjunction: "∧", disjunction: "∨",
>>>> or negation: "¬" is "defined" to be "incomplete".
>>>>
>>>> This definition: A theory T is incomplete if and only if there is some
>>>> sentence φ such that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ) is equally ridiculous when
>>>> all of its implications are very carefully examined.
>>>
>>> May I presume you have a rigorous definition of "ridiculous"?
>>
>> Ideas deserving of disparagement?
>
> I'll take that as a no, you don't have a rigorous definition of
> "ridiculous".
>
> In my opinion, concepts like "ridiculous", "deserving", and
> "disparagement" have no legitimate place in this discussion.
All that anyone had to to do prevent this error is follow the sound
deductive inference model.
It seems a little too weird that none of the greatest mathematicions in
the world could apply junior high school logic to the definition of
incompleteness.
When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
then you necessarily always must end up with truth. If there is any
break in the inference chain then you simply do not end up with truth.
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-16 22:49 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <rerako$oh9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21733 |
On 2020-07-16 22:19, olcott wrote: > On 7/16/2020 5:19 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Here's another yes or no question: Have you read Gödel's proof? > I just posted a copy of his whole paper. How is that an answer to a yes/no question? Posting something and reading something are entirely different things. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 00:34 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <rergpr$kjr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21733 |
On 2020-07-16 22:19, olcott wrote: > On 7/16/2020 5:19 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Are you saying that it's possible for every step of Gödel's proof to be >> valid, but for the proof as a whole to be invalid, yielding a false >> conclusion? Yes or no, please. > > Not quite. Every single step besides a single false premise. So are you going to identify what that false premise is? André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 01:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <87ft9qy3cn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #21733 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 7/16/2020 5:19 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>> On 7/16/2020 1:46 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>> On 7/15/2020 8:42 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 7/15/2020 1:04 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2020 1:25 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>>> Since everyone here is indoctrinated into believing that Gödel is
>>>>>>>>>>> correct I have to use different terms for provability so that people
>>>>>>>>>>> will carefully analyze my reasoning and not simply dismiss it
>>>>>>>>>>> out-of-hand on the basis of their indoctrination.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that the best way to demonstrate that Gödel is
>>>>>>>>>> incorrect would be to demonstrate a flaw in what he actually wrote.
>>>>>>>>>> I haven't read everything you've written here, but I don't recall
>>>>>>>>>> you ever directly quoting Gödel's proof.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not really. When we refute the enormously simplified key result of his
>>>>>>>>> claim: true and unprovable can possibly coexist, then the steps that
>>>>>>>>> he used to get to this key result are moot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've been asserting that for years, and nobody believes you
>>>>>>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C28&q=%22true+and+unprovable%22+godel&btnG=&oq=%22true+and+unprovable%22
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 125 results. No, I'm not going to read them.
>>>>>
>>>>> 125 different people that all believe that Gödel showed that true and
>>>>> unprovable formulas exists, and 125 > 0, thus "nobody believes you" is
>>>>> proven to be false.
>>>>
>>>> Wait, what? Is that really what you meant to say? Gödel *did* show
>>>> that true and unprovable formulas exist. Did you omit a "not"?
>>>
>>> OK that is even better. I thought that he only concluded that some
>>> formulas are neither provable nor disprovable.
>>
>> Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems :
>>
>> 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. The
>> second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first,
>> shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
>>
>
> Show me where Gödel say that in his actual paper:
> https://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/pj2943kt/Fall%202015/Promotion%20Application/Previous%20Years%20Article%2022%20Materials/godel-1931.pdf
I've already said that I haven't read Gödel's proof and probably
wouldn't understand it. (Possibly I could if I devoted the time and
effort to it, but I'm not planning to.) You're the one who's making the
grandiose claims. Is the statement in Wikipedia wrong?
>> Your "OK that is even better" remark seems to imply that you didn't know
>> that, which is frankly staggering. You've spent years claiming to have
>> refuted Gödel's proof, but you don't even know what he proved. >
>>>> OK, "nobody believes you" was hyperbole. I've seen nobody posting here
>>>> who believes that you've successfully refuted Gödel's proof. If you can
>>>> cite an exception, I suppose it would be mildly interesting, but not
>>>> particularly relevant other than to refute my statement. I'll gladly
>>>> revise it to "Hardly anybody believes you".
>>>
>>> How can you show that Gödel really showed that true and unprovable
>>> formulas exist. In other words and this is not merely an
>>> interpretation that someone added later on.
>>
>> By reading and understanding his proof. I'm honestly not prepared
>> to do that myself. I think that some other participants here have,
>> and I'll let them comment further if they choose to do so.
>>
>> Here's another yes or no question: Have you read Gödel's proof?
> I just posted a copy of his whole paper.
Not an answer.
You didn't post a copy. You posted a link. So did I, by quoting your
post. I haven't read Gödel's proof.
Have you?
> I already proved that he himself did not understand it because he
> directly contradicted himself in his footnote 15.
No, he didn't.
>>> The best way would be to quote his paper where he would say:
>>> "I just proved that true and unprovable formulas exist".
>>>
>>> Even his use of natural language seems to be about as convoluted as he
>>> can possibly make it. If he were to say: "I just proved that true and
>>> unprovable formulas exist" it would take him at least fifteen pages.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you think that's going to change if you assert it just one
>>>>>>>> more time? What is your goal here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Whether it's the best way or not, surely *a* way to demonstrate
>>>>>>>> that Gödel is incorrect would be to demonstrate a flaw in what he
>>>>>>>> actually wrote. Not in some summary of his proof, but in his actual
>>>>>>>> proof as he wrote it. Something like "In step 42, Gödel makes use
>>>>>>>> of this assumption, but previously in step 23 he showed that that
>>>>>>>> assumption does not hold in all cases". (That's a hypothetical
>>>>>>>> example, of course.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> His mistake can only be seen through a refutation of the essence of
>>>>>>> his conclusion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, now that's an interesting assertion. Did you really mean "only"?
>>>
>>> Yes
>>
>> Well, I wasn't expecting that answer.
>>
>> You seem to be saying that it would *not* be possible to refute Gödel's
>> proof by finding a specific flaw in it. Is that really what you mean?
>
> Based on his incorrect foundation his conclusion would probably be
> correct. I have been able to reconstruct enormously simpler examples
> of self contradictory expressions that "prove" that their formal
> system is "incomplete".
What "incorrect foundation" are you talking about? Is anything more
than simply *assuming* that all true statements are provable, and
therefore Gödel must obviously be wrong?
> He admitted in his paper that any self-contradictory expression can be
> used to derive the same proof:
>
> 14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
> for a similar undecidability proof
>
>>>>> "Needle in a hay stack"
>>>>> When you are looking for a particular needle in a humongous stack of
>>>>> needles it is very helpful to move this needle far away from all the
>>>>> other needles or you can't even see it separately.
>>>>
>>>> And again, your response to a yes or no question does not include the
>>>> word "yes" or "no".
>>>>
>>>>>> So are you saying that you *cannot* demonstrate that Gödel proof is
>>>>>> incorrect by citing a specific error within the proof. It seems to me
>>>>>> that that's equivalent to saying that Gödel's proof is correct. I'm
>>>>>> sure that's not what you meant. Did you mean specifically that *you*
>>>>>> cannot do that? I doubt that that's what you meant either.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Gödel's proof is correct except for a single key false assumption
>>>>> then Gödel's proof is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> And again.
>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying that it's possible for every step of Gödel's proof
>>>>>> to be valid, but for the proof as a whole to be invalid, yielding a
>>>>>> false conclusion? If so, that's a remarkable assertion from someone
>>>>>> who says that a complex system can be complete and consistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> A single false premise makes the conclusion unsound.
>>>>
>>>> And again. If I ask you a yes or no question, I will ignore any
>>>> response that does not include the word "yes" or "no", or explain
>>>> why neither "yes" nor "no" would be meaningful.
>>>
>>> I am fully refuting your general whole point as it can be applied to
>>> Gödel or anything else.
>>>
>>> If it can be proved that a conclusion is incorrect then there must
>>> have been some error somewhere in the reasoning that lead to the
>>> conclusion. No need to even look at this reasoning as long as its
>>> conclusion can be proved to be incorrect.
>>
>> You have not answered my question.
>>
>> Are you saying that it's possible for every step of Gödel's proof to be
>> valid, but for the proof as a whole to be invalid, yielding a false
>> conclusion? Yes or no, please.
>
> Not quite. Every single step besides a single false premise.
What false premise?
>>>>>> Do you believe there is a specific flaw in Gödel's proof?
>>>>>> (This question is not about what that flaw is, just whether you
>>>>>> think there is one.)
>>>>>>
>>>>> The definition of incompleteness is its flaw.
>>>>
>>>> I'll take that as a yes, but next time I'll ask you to include the
>>>> word "yes" in your answer if that's what you mean.
>>>>
>>>> Really? Is that your whole problem with Gödel's proof, that you
>>>> don't like the way he defines "incompleteness" (or more likely
>>>> "Unvollständigkeit")? (Of course the concept existed before Gödel.)
>>>
>>> If he proved that there are true and unprovable formulas once you
>>> understand how True(x) really works you will see that it is the same
>>> as if he proved 3 > 7, utterly impossibly correct.
>>
>> Yes or no, please.
You know, it's possible to trim quoted material when you post a
followup. It's even considered polite to do so if you're not going to
say anything about it. I asked you a question. You are of course under
no obligation to answer it, but if you're not going to answer it please
stop quoting it.
Here's the question again: Is that your whole problem with Gödel's
proof, that you don't like the way he defines "incompleteness" (or more
likely "Unvollständigkeit")?
>>>>> We could define "incomplete" as a term of the art of mathematics such
>>>>> that every formal system that uses conjunction: "∧", disjunction: "∨",
>>>>> or negation: "¬" is "defined" to be "incomplete".
>>>>>
>>>>> This definition: A theory T is incomplete if and only if there is some
>>>>> sentence φ such that (T ⊬ φ) and (T ⊬ ¬φ) is equally ridiculous when
>>>>> all of its implications are very carefully examined.
>>>>
>>>> May I presume you have a rigorous definition of "ridiculous"?
>>>
>>> Ideas deserving of disparagement?
>>
>> I'll take that as a no, you don't have a rigorous definition of
>> "ridiculous".
>>
>> In my opinion, concepts like "ridiculous", "deserving", and
>> "disparagement" have no legitimate place in this discussion.
Again, you quote large blocks of text and ignore them.
> All that anyone had to to do prevent this error is follow the sound
> deductive inference model.
>
> It seems a little too weird that none of the greatest mathematicions
> in the world could apply junior high school logic to the definition of
> incompleteness.
Yeah, that seems weird, doesn't it. It almost seems as if Gödel was
actually right.
A definition merely tells us how a word is being used.
Is the concept to which the word "undecideability" is applied a valid
concept? (Note that a valid concept can be something that doesn't
necessarily exist; we have words for "centaur" and "unicorn" and we know
what they mean.) Are you *really* basing all this on your dislike of
the way a word was used? Does your argument hold together if we use a
different word for that same concept?
> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations
> then you necessarily always must end up with truth. If there is any
> break in the inference chain then you simply do not end up with truth.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 17:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <Z8adnfrv_vy9uY_CnZ2dnUU7-W3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #21738 |
On 7/17/2020 3:04 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> On 7/16/2020 5:19 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> On 7/16/2020 1:46 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > You know, it's possible to trim quoted material when you post a > followup. It's even considered polite to do so if you're not going to > say anything about it. I asked you a question. You are of course under > no obligation to answer it, but if you're not going to answer it please > stop quoting it. > > Here's the question again: Is that your whole problem with Gödel's > proof, that you don't like the way he defines "incompleteness" (or more > likely "Unvollständigkeit")? > That a self-contradictory sentence cannot be proven or disproven (because it is self-contradictory) is a pretty nutty basis for determining that a formal system is incomplete. >> It seems a little too weird that none of the greatest mathematicions >> in the world could apply junior high school logic to the definition of >> incompleteness. > > Yeah, that seems weird, doesn't it. It almost seems as if Gödel was > actually right. > > A definition merely tells us how a word is being used. > > Is the concept to which the word "undecideability" is applied a valid > concept? 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. I must be stupid because I can't decide whether the sentence: "What time is it?" is true or false, and formal systems are "incomplete" on exactly this same kind of basis. All undecidable decision problems have the same issue: The restrict their solution set to the intersection of disjoint sets. > (Note that a valid concept can be something that doesn't > necessarily exist; we have words for "centaur" and "unicorn" and we know > what they mean.) Are you *really* basing all this on your dislike of > the way a word was used? Does your argument hold together if we use a > different word for that same concept? > >> When you start with truth and only apply truth preserving operations >> then you necessarily always must end up with truth. If there is any >> break in the inference chain then you simply do not end up with truth. > -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 16:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <87tuy5wx52.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #21753 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 7/17/2020 3:04 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>> On 7/16/2020 5:19 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>> On 7/16/2020 1:46 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> You know, it's possible to trim quoted material when you post a
>> followup. It's even considered polite to do so if you're not going to
>> say anything about it. I asked you a question. You are of course under
>> no obligation to answer it, but if you're not going to answer it please
>> stop quoting it.
>>
>> Here's the question again: Is that your whole problem with Gödel's
>> proof, that you don't like the way he defines "incompleteness" (or more
>> likely "Unvollständigkeit")?
>
> That a self-contradictory sentence cannot be proven or disproven
> (because it is self-contradictory) is a pretty nutty basis for
> determining that a formal system is incomplete.
I'm ignoring that because you didn't write "yes" or "no" in response to
my question. Why is that so difficult?
>>> It seems a little too weird that none of the greatest mathematicions
>>> in the world could apply junior high school logic to the definition of
>>> incompleteness.
>>
>> Yeah, that seems weird, doesn't it. It almost seems as if Gödel was
>> actually right.
>>
>> A definition merely tells us how a word is being used.
>>
>> Is the concept to which the word "undecideability" is applied a valid
>> concept?
>
> 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.
Again, not a "yes" or "no".
> I must be stupid because I can't decide whether the sentence:
> "What time is it?" is true or false, and formal systems are
> "incomplete" on exactly this same kind of basis.
It's neither true nor false. The undecideable statements that Gödel
dealt with do not resemble "What time is it?", which is not a statement
at all.
(I asked whether you've read Gödel's proof. You never answered.)
[SNIP]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 18:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <_L-dnVH4-fXQpo_CnZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #21757 |
On 7/17/2020 6:16 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> On 7/17/2020 3:04 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> On 7/16/2020 5:19 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> On 7/16/2020 1:46 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> You know, it's possible to trim quoted material when you post a >>> followup. It's even considered polite to do so if you're not going to >>> say anything about it. I asked you a question. You are of course under >>> no obligation to answer it, but if you're not going to answer it please >>> stop quoting it. >>> >>> Here's the question again: Is that your whole problem with Gödel's >>> proof, that you don't like the way he defines "incompleteness" (or more >>> likely "Unvollständigkeit")? >> >> That a self-contradictory sentence cannot be proven or disproven >> (because it is self-contradictory) is a pretty nutty basis for >> determining that a formal system is incomplete. > > I'm ignoring that because you didn't write "yes" or "no" in response to > my question. Why is that so difficult? > >>>> It seems a little too weird that none of the greatest mathematicions >>>> in the world could apply junior high school logic to the definition of >>>> incompleteness. >>> >>> Yeah, that seems weird, doesn't it. It almost seems as if Gödel was >>> actually right. >>> >>> A definition merely tells us how a word is being used. >>> >>> Is the concept to which the word "undecideability" is applied a valid >>> concept? >> >> 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. > > Again, not a "yes" or "no". > >> I must be stupid because I can't decide whether the sentence: >> "What time is it?" is true or false, and formal systems are >> "incomplete" on exactly this same kind of basis. > > It's neither true nor false. The undecideable statements that Gödel > dealt with do not resemble "What time is it?", which is not a statement > at all. > > (I asked whether you've read Gödel's proof. You never answered.) > > [SNIP] > I have read parts of it. The math parts are utterly gibberish to me, the naturul language parts are very telling. He admits that the Liar Paradox could equally be used as the basis of his proof. For a few years I was studying the wrong version of his paper. The other version is only a paraphrase of his paper. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-18 03:13 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <87imelefjh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #21753 |
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. Just a reminder... It's 580 days since you incorrectly claimed to have a pair of impossible "actual Turing machines", "fully encoded". Everything you've posted on the topic since that has been idle boasting and excuses as to why you can't post them. > All undecidable decision problems have the same issue: > The restrict their solution set to the intersection of disjoint sets. Nonsense. Given a context-free grammar, is it ambiguous? This is undecidable. Given an initial pattern and another, will Conway's game of life generate the latter pattern? This is undecidable. Given two finitely-described groups, are they isomorphic? This is undecidable. Given a multi-variable polynomial, does it have integer roots? This is undecidable. The list goes on an on... All of these are simple yes/no questions about problems where every instance clearly has a correct yes/no answer. It's just not possible to write an algorithm to decide in all cases. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-17 22:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <qeWdnZEQJplh-I_CnZ2dnUU7-IPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #21770 |
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. > > Just a reminder... It's 580 days since you incorrectly claimed to have > a pair of impossible "actual Turing machines", "fully encoded". > Everything you've posted on the topic since that has been idle boasting > and excuses as to why you can't post them. > I am making the final changes to the x86 interpretor to transform it into a UTM with x86 as the TM description language. I spent the last three weeks merely getting this system to work under Linux and Windows. It took me two days to get the Linux version to find the right version of a header file and there was no wrong version, there was only a single instance. >> All undecidable decision problems have the same issue: >> The restrict their solution set to the intersection of disjoint sets. > > Nonsense. Given a context-free grammar, is it ambiguous? This is > undecidable. Given an initial pattern and another, will Conway's game > of life generate the latter pattern? This is undecidable. Given two > finitely-described groups, are they isomorphic? This is undecidable. > Given a multi-variable polynomial, does it have integer roots? This is > undecidable. The list goes on an on... > > All of these are simple yes/no questions about problems where every > instance clearly has a correct yes/no answer. It's just not possible to > write an algorithm to decide in all cases. > -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-18 17:17 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <87d04ser16.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #21773 |
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. >> >> Just a reminder... It's 580 days since you incorrectly claimed to have >> a pair of impossible "actual Turing machines", "fully encoded". >> Everything you've posted on the topic since that has been idle boasting >> and excuses as to why you can't post them. >> > > I am making the final changes to the x86 interpretor to transform it > into a UTM with x86 as the TM description language. I spent the last > three weeks merely getting this system to work under Linux and > Windows. No one wants to see a pile of junk code. If you didn't lie when you said you had the TMs, post them. Otherwise you can just keep making excuses, because the longer you spare the world from having to find the error hidden in a pile of x86 code the better. Nothing about your key error though. 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? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-18 12:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <EaydnYuinvhBqY7CnZ2dnUU7-Q3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #21787 |
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. >>> >>> Just a reminder... It's 580 days since you incorrectly claimed to have >>> a pair of impossible "actual Turing machines", "fully encoded". >>> Everything you've posted on the topic since that has been idle boasting >>> and excuses as to why you can't post them. >>> >> >> I am making the final changes to the x86 interpretor to transform it >> into a UTM with x86 as the TM description language. I spent the last >> three weeks merely getting this system to work under Linux and >> Windows. > > No one wants to see a pile of junk code. If you didn't lie when you > said you had the TMs, post them. Otherwise you can just keep making > excuses, because the longer you spare the world from having to find the > error hidden in a pile of x86 code the better. > > Nothing about your key error though. 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? > Lets get back to exactly what the standard model of arithmetic is. If you want to get there through Q that might be OK except that there is much more material on model theory related to PA. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-18 15:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <875zakwk73.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #21788 |
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.
>>>>
>>>> Just a reminder... It's 580 days since you incorrectly claimed to have
>>>> a pair of impossible "actual Turing machines", "fully encoded".
>>>> Everything you've posted on the topic since that has been idle boasting
>>>> and excuses as to why you can't post them.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am making the final changes to the x86 interpretor to transform it
>>> into a UTM with x86 as the TM description language. I spent the last
>>> three weeks merely getting this system to work under Linux and
>>> Windows.
>>
>> No one wants to see a pile of junk code. If you didn't lie when you
>> said you had the TMs, post them. Otherwise you can just keep making
>> excuses, because the longer you spare the world from having to find the
>> error hidden in a pile of x86 code the better.
>>
>> Nothing about your key error though. 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?
>>
>
> Lets get back to exactly what the standard model of arithmetic is. If
> you want to get there through Q that might be OK except that there is
> much more material on model theory related to PA.
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
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-18 20:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <osqdnaSxPtZWPI7CnZ2dnUU7-TGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #21793 |
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. >>>>> >>>>> Just a reminder... It's 580 days since you incorrectly claimed to have >>>>> a pair of impossible "actual Turing machines", "fully encoded". >>>>> Everything you've posted on the topic since that has been idle boasting >>>>> and excuses as to why you can't post them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am making the final changes to the x86 interpretor to transform it >>>> into a UTM with x86 as the TM description language. I spent the last >>>> three weeks merely getting this system to work under Linux and >>>> Windows. >>> >>> No one wants to see a pile of junk code. If you didn't lie when you >>> said you had the TMs, post them. Otherwise you can just keep making >>> excuses, because the longer you spare the world from having to find the >>> error hidden in a pile of x86 code the better. >>> >>> Nothing about your key error though. 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? >>> >> >> Lets get back to exactly what the standard model of arithmetic is. If >> you want to get there through Q that might be OK except that there is >> much more material on model theory related to PA. > > 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. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-19 03:45 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <87v9ikcjdv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #21794 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-19 11:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <jrqdnYNDVL1v5YnCnZ2dnUU7-K_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #21796 |
On 7/18/2020 9:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > 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. > Computer science is different than math because some degree of actual intelligence can be specified in an algorithm, whereas math is always some fixed set of immutable rules. The conventional self-referential halting problem counter-example most clearly defined by Linz as specific state transitions is definitely decidable (Linz 1990:319) Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-19 11:05 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <rf1ugs$a5e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21798 |
On 2020-07-19 10:46, olcott wrote: > On 7/18/2020 9:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> 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. >> > > Computer science is different than math because some degree of actual > intelligence can be specified in an algorithm, whereas math is always > some fixed set of immutable rules. An algorithm is, by definition, a purely mechanical procedure. Unless you have some non-standard definition in mind, there is no 'intelligence' present in an algorithm. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-19 12:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <zaadnSN8F9Ob4onCnZ2dnUU7-RmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #21799 |
On 7/19/2020 12:05 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2020-07-19 10:46, olcott wrote: >> On 7/18/2020 9:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> Computer science is different than math because some degree of actual >> intelligence can be specified in an algorithm, whereas math is always >> some fixed set of immutable rules. > > An algorithm is, by definition, a purely mechanical procedure. Unless > you have some non-standard definition in mind, there is no > 'intelligence' present in an algorithm. > > André As soon as we create the fully functional equivalent of a human mind this "no intelligence at all" will be quite intelligent. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-19 11:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <rf1vvo$jmb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #21800 |
On 2020-07-19 11:12, olcott wrote: > On 7/19/2020 12:05 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2020-07-19 10:46, olcott wrote: >>> Computer science is different than math because some degree of actual >>> intelligence can be specified in an algorithm, whereas math is always >>> some fixed set of immutable rules. >> >> An algorithm is, by definition, a purely mechanical procedure. Unless >> you have some non-standard definition in mind, there is no >> 'intelligence' present in an algorithm. >> >> André > > As soon as we create the fully functional equivalent of a human mind > this "no intelligence at all" will be quite intelligent. I'm not going to hold my breath. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-19 12:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <RJCdnaCDW-ENGYnCnZ2dnUU7-bPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #21802 |
On 7/19/2020 12:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2020-07-19 11:12, olcott wrote: >> On 7/19/2020 12:05 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2020-07-19 10:46, olcott wrote: > >>>> Computer science is different than math because some degree of >>>> actual intelligence can be specified in an algorithm, whereas math >>>> is always some fixed set of immutable rules. >>> >>> An algorithm is, by definition, a purely mechanical procedure. Unless >>> you have some non-standard definition in mind, there is no >>> 'intelligence' present in an algorithm. >>> >>> André >> >> As soon as we create the fully functional equivalent of a human mind >> this "no intelligence at all" will be quite intelligent. > > I'm not going to hold my breath. > > André > The key difference is the math operates under a fixed set of immutable rules and computer science can constantly dynamically adapts its rules. The kind of machine learning called "deep learning" has proven to be enormously effective at this. It learns how to discover very complex relationships on its own and figures out how to apply this learning on its own without human intervention. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-07-19 20:51 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V24 (Are we there yet?) |
| Message-ID | <87k0yzcmhl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #21798 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/18/2020 9:45 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> 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. > > Computer science is different than math because some degree of actual > intelligence can be specified in an algorithm, whereas math is always > some fixed set of immutable rules. Stop changing the subject. This is what is what you said: | 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 should acknowledge that you are wrong. I suppose you could try to defend this claim, but the very fact that haven't even addressed it in any subsequent post suggests you can't (or have no intention of doing so). Determining if a context free grammar is ambiguous is a famous undecidable problem. The answer in all cases is a simple yes/no binary choice. It is never in any way like "deciding which of the two Boolean values the current time". > The conventional self-referential halting problem counter-example most > clearly defined by Linz as specific state transitions is definitely > decidable (Linz 1990:319) Whatever this is supposed to mean (and I know enough about your other claims to have a pretty good idea) it does not support your claim about undecidability. By the way, since this last paragraph is the basis for your Big Lie (the one about having two TMs that you never actually had) you should at least learn to state it correctly as you are likely to want to repeat it many more times. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web