Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!not-for-mail From: paul wallich Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Eliminating Undecidability and Incompleteness in Formal Systems (Prolog already does this) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 17:53:28 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <2_ydnT3SYPULgV7BnZ2dnUU7-cnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <20190426104732.755@kylheku.com> <20190426174714.286@kylheku.com> <20190427112403.568@kylheku.com> <877ebfcdzc.fsf@nightsong.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1556574809 9645 127.0.0.1 (29 Apr 2019 21:53:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:53:29 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.lisp:32803 On 4/27/19 7:12 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote on 4/27/2019 3:52 PM: >> peteolcott writes: >>> I have spent 22 years and 12,000 hours on this. >> >> http://web.mst.edu/%7Elmhall/WhatToDoWhenTrisectorComes.pdf > > Thanks for the pointer. It seems I missed that article - it came in a > crack between regularly reading the Intelligencer in the USC/ISI library > where I was employed and starting my own subscription which I kept for > two decades. The Intelligencer went from wildly entertaining to hard to > read during the latter period. The article by Dudley has a wider appeal > today than when he wrote it in 1983; we have lots of computer systems to > shield cranks and save then postage. > > PO fits the article's profile to a tee: he claims to be in his 60's, to > have spent thousands of hours, keeps cleaning and pushing the same > mistakes over and over again, and is basically a very poor mathematician > who believes that PROLOG represents real and deep logic systems. I have > been leaning towards troll rather than ignoramus but the article gives > me a third choice: trisector! I'll keep it in mind. > > The thing I find interesting is that most people, including me, find it > so hard to not respond to his gibberish. The first reaction is to help a > lost soul back onto the path of truth (caps?) while the second reaction > is mostly a reaction to a hard challenge like trying to stare down a > lizard. I think that the problem isn't trisection exactly but rather a sort of weird semantic capture. The term "unsound" is used to tag the category "neither provable nor refutable" but that's -- within the system -- just a tag. The logical system, such as it is, would work just as well if the tag were "NPNR" or "frabjous" or "charmed" or "boogabooga". But use the tag "unsound", and magically all of the senses of "unsound" from colloguial language and other logical systems suddenly get dragged in and pasted over the top of what might as well be "frabjous". Do some brains need better macro systems?