Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Show key headers only | View raw
Conclusion it requires more work, to go from predicates to sets, than blindly replacing each predicate by a set membership. It requires more when you want to preserve validity and invalidity, i.e. when you want to prevent false positives in the new formalization with sets. Most mathematicians know how to do it. Mild Shock schrieb am Montag, 29. Mai 2023 um 22:39:06 UTC+2: > But your blooper is understandable, distinguishing > Chihuahuas from Muffins requires very good eye sight. > Artificial intelligence has similar struggles: > Chihuahua or muffin? My search for the best computer vision API > https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/chihuahua-or-muffin-my-search-for-the-best-computer-vision-api-cbda4d6b425d/ > In the present case one needs eye sight to > see that we have "invalid" and "valid", two different > words already, even with opposite meaning: > > > **Muffin:** ∃x¬Dx is invalid. > > https://www.umsu.de/trees/#~7x~3Dx > > > **Chihuahua:** EXIST(x):[~x in s] is valid. > > http://www.dcproof.com/UniversalSet.htm > Dan Christensen schrieb am Montag, 29. Mai 2023 um 20:10:17 UTC+2: > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 1:52:10 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock (aka Mr. Collapse) wrote: > > > > > Dan Christensen schrieb: > > > > On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 12:39:51 PM UTC-4, Mild Shock (aka Mr. Collapse) wrote: > > > >> Similarly you can prove these two now: > > > >> EXIST(x):[x in d => p=d] > > > >> EXIST(x):[x in d => ~p=d] > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes. Sadly, for you Mr. Collapse, this apparently does NOT lead to any inconsistency. Just try prove from this that p=d & ~p=d. > > > > > > > > This shows why you should avoid pathological constructs of the form EXIST(x):[x in s => P]. They really tell you nothing useful. > > > > > > > It leads to an error, nonsensical conclusion, caused by over > > > generalization. Over generalization is also a problem > > > in machine learning of artificial intelligence: > > > > > > For example this AI cannot distinguish a Chihuahua from a Muffin: > > > > > Huh? I take it you were unable to prove that the above results were inconsistent. Now, you can only hope to change the subject. Oh, well... > > Dan > > > > Download my DC Proof 2.0 freeware at http://www.dcproof.com > > Visit my Math Blog at http://www.dcproof.wordpress.com
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 06:59 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 07:10 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-21 08:22 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 12:14 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 12:16 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 12:17 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-21 12:50 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 12:56 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-21 15:45 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-21 16:01 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 16:29 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 16:56 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-21 16:59 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-21 17:51 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-05-22 02:51 +0200
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mostowski Collapse <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-26 14:13 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 08:53 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 08:56 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 09:03 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 09:34 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 09:38 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 09:39 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 10:24 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2023-05-29 19:49 +0200
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 11:10 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 13:39 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 13:58 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 15:17 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 15:24 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-29 17:39 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 18:52 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 19:04 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-05-29 19:34 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-05-30 15:18 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 11:39 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 15:56 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-05 18:53 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 22:40 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 22:48 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-05 22:57 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-06 07:37 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-06 09:13 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> - 2023-06-06 10:13 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-07 13:31 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-07 13:37 -0700
Re: Smullyan's Proof of the Drinkers Principle V3 Mild Shock <bursejan@gmail.com> - 2023-06-07 13:42 -0700
csiph-web