Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #103878
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic |
| Subject | Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- |
| Date | 2024-04-21 16:38 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <v040vp$gra8$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <fv6dnVGaiaq3q7j7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v03j47$duff$1@dont-email.me> <PjKdnaQ6_-5iwLj7nZ2dnZfqn_SdnZ2d@giganews.com> <v03poc$fc7j$1@dont-email.me> <v03vsb$1q6tg$2@i2pn2.org> |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On 4/21/2024 4:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 4/21/24 3:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/21/2024 1:42 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/21/2024 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2024 10:53 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>> On 04/21/2024 08:16 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/2024 9:17 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 04/20/2024 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 10:39 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/20/2024 02:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2024 3:07 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/19/2024 02:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2024 4:04 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/19/2024 11:23 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2024 11:51 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/17/2024 10:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/17/2024 9:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "...14 Every epistemological antinomy can likewise be used
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undecidability proof..." (Gödel 1931:43-44)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is literally true whether or not Gödel meant it literally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literally true I am sure that he did mean it literally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Parphrased as*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every expression X that cannot possibly be true or false
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proves
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formal system F cannot correctly determine whether X is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which shows that X is undecidable in F.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is easy to understand that self-contradictory mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unprovable and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrefutable, thus meeting the definition of Incomplete(F).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which shows that F is incomplete, even though X cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition in F because propositions must be true or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics, logic, and related fields, often
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> characterized as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bearer of truth or falsity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Most common-sense types have "the truth is the truth is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as with regards to logical positivism and a sensitive,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thorough,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comprehensive, reasoned account of rationality and the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objects of the logical theory, makes for again a stonger
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> logical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> positivism, reinvigorated with a minimal "silver thread"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metaphysics, all quite logicist and all quite positivist,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> while
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again structuralist and formalist, "the truth is the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Plainly, modeling bodies of knowledge is at least two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one is a formal logical model, and another is a scientific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as with regards to expectations, a statistical model.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For all the things to be in one modality, is that, as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> belief, is that belief is formally unreliable, while at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, reasoned and rational as for its own inner consistency
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inter-consistency, all the other models in the entire modal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> universe,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> temporal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Axioms are stipulations, they're assumptions, and there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very well-reasoned ones, and those what follow the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reflections on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation, in matters of definition of structural
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relation, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the first-class typing, of these things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proposition is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a proposition that is known to be true by understanding its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of the correct model of the actual world
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are not assumptions. In this case stipulations are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assignment of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic meaning to otherwise totally meaningless finite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We do not merely assume that a "dead rat" is not any type of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "fifteen story office building" we know that it is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> self-evident
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Expressions of language that are stipulated to be true for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sole purpose of providing semantic meaning to otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaningless finite strings provide the ultimate foundation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> every
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression that are true on the basis of its meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only other element required to define the entire body of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {expressions of language that are true on the basis of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is applying truth preserving operations to stipulated truths.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The axiomless, really does make for a richer accoutrement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after metaphysics and the canon, why the objects of reason
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and rationality, "arise" from axiomless deduction,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> naturally.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, our axiomatics and theory "attain" to this, the truth,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of what is, "A Theory", at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One good theory. (Modeling all individuals and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contingencies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and their models of belief as part of the world of theory.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One good theory, "A Theory: at all", we are in it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A catalog and schema and dictionary and the finite is only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Bigger: not always worse."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Understanding" doesn't mean much here
>>>>>>>>>>>>> except lack thereof, and hypocrisy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We only have "true axioms" because in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> all their applications they've held up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> They "withstand", and, "overstand".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> We cannot really understand the notion of true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>>>>>>> by only examining how this applies to real numbers. We must
>>>>>>>>>>>> broaden
>>>>>>>>>>>> the scope to every natural language expression.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we do this then we understand that a "dead rat" is not any
>>>>>>>>>>>> type
>>>>>>>>>>>> of "fifteen story office building" is a semantic tautology that
>>>>>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly be false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> When we understand this then we have much deeper insight
>>>>>>>>>>>> into the
>>>>>>>>>>>> nature
>>>>>>>>>>>> of mathematical axioms, they too must be semantic tautologies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong with Tertium Not Datur,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the class of predicates where it applies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which is not all of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Leafing through Badiou's "Second Manifesto ... on Philosophy",
>>>>>>>>>>> he sort of arrives at again "I am a Platonist, yet a
>>>>>>>>>>> sophisticated
>>>>>>>>>>> not a vulgar one".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It seems quite a development when after Badiou's "First
>>>>>>>>>>> Manifesto
>>>>>>>>>>> ..."
>>>>>>>>>>> twenty years prior, that in the maturation of his philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>> development he came again to arrive at truth as its own truth.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tautology, identity, and equality, are not necessarily the same
>>>>>>>>>>> thing, with regards to deconstructive accounts, and the
>>>>>>>>>>> distinction
>>>>>>>>>>> of extensionality and intensionality, for sameness and
>>>>>>>>>>> difference,
>>>>>>>>>>> with regards to affirmation and negation, in usual modes of
>>>>>>>>>>> predicativity and quantifier disambiguation.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A semantic tautology is a term that I came up with that
>>>>>>>>>> self-defines the
>>>>>>>>>> logical positivist notion of analytic truth. It seems that most
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> succumbed to Quine's nonsense and decided to simply "not
>>>>>>>>>> believe in"
>>>>>>>>>> {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We know that the living animal {cat} is not any type of {fifteen
>>>>>>>>>> story office building} only because of {true on the basis of
>>>>>>>>>> meaning}.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Geometry arising as natural and axiomless from "a geometry of
>>>>>>>>>>> points and spaces" from which Euclid's geometry justly arises,
>>>>>>>>>>> helps illustrate that deconstructive accounts work at the
>>>>>>>>>>> structuralist and constructivist again, what makes for that
>>>>>>>>>>> axiomatics is didactic, vis-a-vis, fundamentality.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Type and category are truly great ideas, it's true,
>>>>>>>>>>> and they're modeled as first-class after a deconstructive
>>>>>>>>>>> account of their concrete models, their abstract models.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Type, and category, have inversions, where for example
>>>>>>>>>>> a cat is a feline animal, while a lion is king of the beasts.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The most usual sorts of is-a and has-a are copulas, there
>>>>>>>>>>> are many sorts predicates of relation of relation, first-class.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The use/mention distinction has that a type is a type is a type,
>>>>>>>>>>> that an instance of a type is-or-is-not an instance of a type,
>>>>>>>>>>> that it's an instance of a type and is an instance of a type.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Distinction and contradistinction, have it so for type
>>>>>>>>>>> inversion,
>>>>>>>>>>> that the abstract and the concrete, model each other.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then for geometry (of space) and algebra (of words), there's
>>>>>>>>>>> basically that space is infinite and words finite,
>>>>>>>>>>> there's though a space of words and words of space.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then, type theory and category theory, make for great bodies
>>>>>>>>>>> of relation of relation, that for most, theory is a relation
>>>>>>>>>>> of relation, and that there is always a first-class abstraction,
>>>>>>>>>>> theory, at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, an ontology is just a sample of data in a science.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The "strong metonymy", is the idea that there's a true ontology.
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, it's not absent a metaphysical moment.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A complete
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
>>>>>>>>>> is an accurate model of the actual world. Not the same thing
>>>>>>>>>> at all
>>>>>>>>>> as an ontology from philosophy:
>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is definitely a true ontology even if every aspect of
>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>> reality is a figment of the imagination. You will never be
>>>>>>>>>> able to
>>>>>>>>>> experience what seems to be the physical sensations of taking
>>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>>> puppies elevator to his fifteenth floor.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, you use quasi-modal logic but proved to yourself
>>>>>>>>> it's not quasi-modal?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You proved to yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you understand that you cannot take the elevator to the fifteen
>>>>>>>> floor
>>>>>>>> of your puppy then you know that there are expressions that are
>>>>>>>> true on
>>>>>>>> the basis of their meaning. Quine could never get this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One doesn't get a free pass from the argument and rhetoric
>>>>>>>>> and discourse of the limits of ontology without an encompassing
>>>>>>>>> reason and discourse on the completion of an ontology, a body of
>>>>>>>>> knowledge, that seems an insufferable ignorance and it's not
>>>>>>>>> invincible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There are billions of things just like puppyies are
>>>>>>>> not fifteen story office buildings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The usual notion of the quasi-modal model of the world,
>>>>>>>>> sort of lacks contingency and temporality and a modality
>>>>>>>>> everywhere, why it's called quasi-modal, because it's just
>>>>>>>>> ignorant that it's not actually modal (temporal).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no reason why it can't have those things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's fair to say that Carnap and Quine and the Vienna school
>>>>>>>>> and logical positivism after Boole and Shopenhauer and Derrida
>>>>>>>>> sort of arrives at a big angsty withdrawal from a true theory
>>>>>>>>> that's true with truth in it, while as well exploring the
>>>>>>>>> a-letheia the traditional notion of disclosing what are not
>>>>>>>>> un-truths, "remembering again for the first time", and all
>>>>>>>>> these aspects of the canon of the technical philosophy that
>>>>>>>>> are so because there's sort of before-Hegel and after-Hegel,
>>>>>>>>> that Hegel's sort of included in before-Hegel, while at the
>>>>>>>>> same time claimed by after-Hegel, that we are not new Hegelians.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Much like Kant leaves the Sublime _in_ the theory, as the
>>>>>>>>> least "silver thread", connecting a proper metaphysics to
>>>>>>>>> the physics and it's a science, Hegel makes for both a
>>>>>>>>> fuller dialectic, and, besides Nothing, Hegel's a Platonist, too.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then, with Wittgenstein and Nietzsche and Heidegger as,
>>>>>>>>> "anti-Plato's, and Platonists again", then Gadamer arrives
>>>>>>>>> at "Amicus Plato, period" and Badiou "you know, I'm a Platonist
>>>>>>>>> again", what I think of your machine mind is that it doesn't
>>>>>>>>> have a first-class mental maturity of an object sense of
>>>>>>>>> objectivity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You know, fifteen story buildings don't have thirteenth floors,
>>>>>>>>> ...,
>>>>>>>>> in some places.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The point is that because Quine could not understand how we know
>>>>>>>> that all bachelors are unmarried he might not also accept that no
>>>>>>>> puppy is a fifteen story office buildings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can surely appreciate a grand ontology, yet, in terms of
>>>>>>>>> the Ontological Commitment, and what one makes of an
>>>>>>>>> Ontological Commitment, that fact that you have given yours
>>>>>>>>> to a bitmap sort of arrives that being considered lacking
>>>>>>>>> a more thorough and reasoned goal of "Ontological Commitment:
>>>>>>>>> Reason, Rationality, the Purely Technically Philosophical,
>>>>>>>>> and Science, and the Empirical, the Phenomenological",
>>>>>>>>> is something that one can leave or keep, instead of being
>>>>>>>>> just awash and adrift in the 0's and 1's.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would be organized such the reasoning with formalized
>>>>>>>> natural language would be tree walks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It may be all 0's and 1's down there, yet it's all
>>>>>>>>> true and false up there, and here in the middle is
>>>>>>>>> a sort of Objectivism.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What's above is as what is below,
>>>>>>>>> a finite bitmap is so many scrawls
>>>>>>>>> a stick, in the sand, of the beach, to reckon.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That makes for "relevance logic", that syllogism only makes sense
>>>>>>> in terms among common types.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes exactly no one else could get this because they try
>>>>>> to hide their ignorance with insults and disparagement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also for "relevance logic" is that "Ex Falso Quodlibet and
>>>>>>> Material Implication" are _not_ a thing, and that a contradiction
>>>>>>> about un-related/ir-relevant things say absolutely _nothing_
>>>>>>> about things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes that is the exact error of modern logic.
>>>>>> {The Moon is made of Green Cheese} proves {Donald Trump is God}
>>>>>> In both the principle of explosion and valid deductive inference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a
>>>>>> form
>>>>>> that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the
>>>>>> conclusion
>>>>>> nevertheless to be false.https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus enabling 'from falsehood, anything [follows]';
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.e., "Russell is not the Pope, and Russell never was the Pope".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That works just fine for usual "common-sense" types, and
>>>>>>> it really even reflects on "common" and "sense", and it's
>>>>>>> why there's "relevance logic" at all from what otherwise
>>>>>>> was just usual analysis because "classical quasi-modal
>>>>>>> logic" has "EFQ+MI" and Principle of Explosion instead
>>>>>>> of "Ex Falso Nihilum".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, one needn't have a "greater ontology" to establish
>>>>>>> that the housecat or juvenile canine and the office tower
>>>>>>> or a steamboat, while each things, have distinct properties
>>>>>>> which effect their relations in usual enough is-a/has-a senses
>>>>>>> or as with regards to any other collections of tuples in classes
>>>>>>> and individuals and predicates that affect descriptions of
>>>>>>> relations, which of course must be non-circular and
>>>>>>> non-contradictory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The purpose of the greater knowledge ontology that already exists
>>>>>> in the minds of most people is to provide computations with human
>>>>>> reasoning. LLM systems have already computed in a few months what
>>>>>> would take humans millions of man-years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems then first you put down the quasi-modal for
>>>>>>> relevance logic its much more sensible framework,
>>>>>>> then at least common-sense is much less insulted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc project already spent
>>>>>> 1000 labor years fully formalizing all common sense. Without
>>>>>> the help of LLM systems it would take millions of labor years
>>>>>> to formalize the rest of human general knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My usual biggest gripe is about EFQ+MI which
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not sure what you mean by MI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> seems totally insouciant if not duplicitous,
>>>>>>> and absolutely un-necessary, then about Tertium
>>>>>>> Non Datur gets involved the multi-valent, and
>>>>>>> the temporal and so on, then besides the usual
>>>>>>> notions of of sputniks of quantification of the
>>>>>>> usual roots of "logical" paradox, a deconstructive
>>>>>>> account after modern fundamental formalisms
>>>>>>> results a quite better approach to modern foudnations,
>>>>>>> also modern fundamental formalist foundations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The sum total of all human general knowledge can be encoded
>>>>>> in mostly in formalized natural language propositions. Some
>>>>>> of this must be formalized using other formal languages.
>>>>>> One can explain the details of writing C programs in English
>>>>>> yet needs some actual C mixed into the explanation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We don't really need multi-valent logic. Mostly what we need
>>>>>> is an enormously large number of axioms that are stipulated
>>>>>> to have the Boolean value of true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We can compress the space required for these axioms and make
>>>>>> them much easier to process in an inheritance hierarchy knowledge
>>>>>> ontology. We also refrain from directly encoding and facts of the
>>>>>> world that can be derived from other facts of the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {Cats} <are> {Animals}
>>>>>> {Animals} <are> {Living Things}
>>>>>> thus no need to store
>>>>>> {Cats} <are> {Living Things}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is already in the knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy.
>>>>>> UML Inheritance {cat} ▷ {animal} ▷ {Living Thing}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A usual idea of a more robust deduction is also
>>>>> that the premises have to be drawable as random
>>>>> draws and that it results the same deduction
>>>>> regardless the order of the draws.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have not idea what this could possibly mean.
>>>> {Cats} <are> {Animals} can only be deduced from the
>>>> axiom {Cats} <are> {Animals}.
>>>>
>>>>> So, I don't agree that being "valid deductive inference",
>>>>> it not being sound given arbitrary order-senstive premises.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is valid deductive inference as shown by my analysis above:
>>>> {The Moon is made of Green Cheese} proves {Donald Trump is God}
>>>>
>>>>> That is, a robust and sound and valid deductive inference,
>>>>> has to be the same from any angle and any draw or any
>>>>> serialization of the premises (or "premisses").
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we don't somehow have some aspects of semantic relevance
>>>> directly encoded into our notion of formal systems of logic then we get
>>>> {The Moon is made of Green Cheese} proves {Donald Trump is God}
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The "EFQ+MI" is "Ex False Quodlibet plus Material
>>>>> Implication", where "Material Implication" is neither
>>>>> "material" nor "implication" and "not p, or q" does
>>>>> not have a "truth value", and doesn't belong in
>>>>> a "truth table",
>>>>
>>>> I totally agree with you on this. All of the other people on
>>>> these forums take the steps of logic as forming their own
>>>> foundation and thus are inherently correct even when they
>>>> derive nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> I would replace implication with is a necessary consequence of.
>>>> Making the unary operator □ also be applied to binary relations.
>>>> ∃!fluffy ∈ Cats | (Fluffy □ Animal).
>>>>
>>>> They simply stipulate that the nonsense that they derive cannot
>>>> possibly be nonsense on basis of their religious belief that the
>>>> steps of logic are inherently infallible.
>>>>
>>>> They then go on to assert that anyone that does not hold this
>>>> religious belief is totally ignorant about logic. They never
>>>> realize that the issue is their own ignorance of the philosophy
>>>> of logic.
>>>>
>>>>> with regards to why a usual "model"
>>>>> in such a setting also isn't a model and usual "monotonicity"
>>>>> in such a setting also isn't and a usual "entails"
>>>>> in such a setting also isn't, that being why what
>>>>
>>>> A is a necessary consequence of B: A □ B seems to be entails.
>>>>
>>>>> you'll find in the field called "Comte's Boole's Russell's
>>>>> logical positivism's 'classical' logic" is renamed its
>>>>> more proper appellation "classical _quasi-modal_ logic".
>>>>>
>>>>> This is like, "ass|u|me", and "e fq mi", both considered
>>>>> bad ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You are almost the only one that every agreed with me on this.
>>>> The only other one the agreed that EFQ is nonsense had their
>>>> answer voted down to oblivion on SE. Logicians and Mathematicians
>>>> have the firmly held religious belief that the rules of logic
>>>> are inherently infallible and utterly ridicule anyone that
>>>> fully understands all of the reasoning that proves otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> When this proof is presented to them they put their hands
>>>> over their ears making sure to not hear a single word while
>>>> shouting your stupid fool you don't know logic at all.
>>>>
>>>>> > The premises, of deductive inference, if they're in
>>>>> a given order, _is another premise_, and when they're _not_,
>>>>> then those _are not_.
>>>>>
>>>> Every sequence of inference steps must be in the proper order
>>>> or there is no connection between inference steps.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea of "Large Language Model" is largely bunk,
>>>>> a model of reasoning can be very compact.
>>>>> Just having an arithmetic/vector coding of associated
>>>>> values in types, is just an addressing scheme.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is not actually largely bunk.
>>>> It has the key issue that it lies its ass off.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucination_(artificial_intelligence)
>>>>
>>>> Technology like this is the only feasible way that we can
>>>> populate a knowledge ontology of the general knowledge of
>>>> the actual world.
>>>>
>>>> This dialogue proves that it has the equivalent of human understanding
>>>> that undecidable decision problems are really nothing more than yes/no
>>>> questions defined to have no correct yes/no answer.
>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/ChatGPT_HP.pdf
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Schroedinger's cat, now, helps explores in concept
>>>>> the nature of indeterminism, and why, inference and
>>>>> reasoning is first-class, not follow-the-red-dot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What you get into is the box and circle modalities,
>>> about when the transfer principle applies and
>>> a heap is a heap is a heap or the Sorities,
>>> matter of definition, not a paradox, disambiguated
>>> in its quantifiers by disambiguating the universal quantifier,
>>> into for: any/each/every/all, existential as unique or not,
>>> the result _direct implication_ carries and with
>>> ALL of De Morgan's rules of logic, simplifies things,
>>> and excludes any sort "paradox".
>>>
>>> That a cat has a kingdom and a genus and species vis-a-vis
>>> being in a class of a kingdom and genus and speciesas is-a, just
>>> reflects that is-a and has-a are only about the predicates
>>> and relations, predicate logic and the predicate calculus,
>>> and the resulting logic large of relations, and not necessarily
>>> to be confused with Tarski's "cylindrical" bits when for
>>> example there is algebraic GEOMETRY and ALGEBRAIC geometry
>>> and they're _two, different things_.
>>>
>>> I usually like to frame predicates as 'has-a' instead of
>>> 'is-a', because, things change, and "is" just "is".
>>>
>>> It's all relations of course, predicates is relations.
>>>
>>>
>>> I often have said "anybody who buys or shills Material Implication
>>> is a fool or a fraud". The _direct_ implication, or just plain
>>> old implication, first of all fills all of De Morgan's rules of logic
>>> both ways, and, does not need "Material Implication", which is neither,
>>> at all.
>>>
>>>
>>> Russell: was never, the Pope.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Things have Types. So, one should be familiar with C.S. Peirce
>>> and the Lambda Calculus, yet, in the logic of the universals and
>>> particulars, there is the besides Type Inversion, there are as
>>> well quantifier ambiguities, simply courtesy quantification
>>> and schemes or schemas, to be resolved with quantifier disambiguation
>>> and the correct and adequate book-keeping of contingency the
>>> modality in predication the relation a stroke, evaluation.
>>>
>>> (Judgment.)
>>
>> The Bottom line that you seem to be avoiding is that there really
>> are expressions that are {true on the basis of meaning}.
>
> SOME statements are true based on their "meaning" (as you are defining
> it), not all.
>
> Not ALL True statements are True based on the meaning of their words.
>
> Agaim, you are falling for the fallacy of proof by example.
>
> The Pythagorean Theorem isn't True by the meaning of the words, but its
> truth comes out of the Truth makers of Plane Geometry and a series of
> valid connections from them to the Theorem.
>
>>
>> We really cannot take the elevator of a puppy to the fifteenth
>> floor of this puppy and this is {true on the basis of meaning}.
>>
>> The majority of people that were convinced there is no such thing
>> as {true on the basis of meaning} on the basis that Quine utterly
>> failed to understand how we know that bachelors are unmarried are
>> simply wrong.
>
> I don't think many people think that there are no statements that are
> true by the nature of the meaning of the words, just that the "meaning
> of the words" can't be the only criteria.
>
I never restricted it this way (to the meaning of words)
I never even restricted on on the basis of the:
*Principle of compositionality*
In semantics, mathematical logic and related disciplines, the principle
of compositionality is the principle that the meaning of a complex
expression is determined by the meanings of its constituent expressions
and the rules used to combine them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_compositionality
I have *always* meant the 100% perfectly totally complete
meaning that also includes the full discourse context.
Do you think that it is possible to:
take the elevator of a puppy to the fifteenth floor of this puppy?
or would the total meaning of the expression make that impossible?
Maybe my example would have given Quine a clue about how we know
that all bachelors are unmarried. He is the one that convinced
most of the world that {true on the basis of meaning} is vacuous
and he did this almost entirely on the basis that he could not
understand exactly how we know that all bachelors are unmarried.
{true on the basis of meaning} is only relations between finite
strings thus excludes direct observations of things in the world.
*Two Dogmas of Empiricism*
https://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
>>
>> We must establish {true on the basis of meaning} as the ultimate
>> foundation of correct reasoning before we can begin to point out
>> how modern logic diverges from correct reasoning.
>>
>
> Then your concept of "Correct Reasoning" can't handle fundamental true
> statements like the Pythagorean Theorem, or even that 2 + 3 = 5, as
> these are not true JUST by the meaning of the words.
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-17 23:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:31 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 20:11 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 21:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 21:25 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 22:50 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 22:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 07:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:18 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 11:37 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:05 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:11 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 11:26 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:03 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:54 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:40 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 15:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 11:19 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 13:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:16 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 09:38 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:52 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 19:20 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 01:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 08:56 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 10:20 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 11:39 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 10:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 19:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:17 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 20:49 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 22:00 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 23:38 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:56 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:02 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 14:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:19 -0400
D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 20:26 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 20:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 22:18 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 22:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 23:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 23:07 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 07:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 09:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 12:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 15:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 14:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:24 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 16:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:56 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 18:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 19:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 20:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:29 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:16 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:40 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 11:52 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:43 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 12:55 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 09:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 11:54 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 06:38 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 17:57 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 22:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 10:56 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:11 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:06 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 14:39 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 15:34 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:57 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 17:14 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 12:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 11:31 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:15 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 13:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 16:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 16:18 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 17:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 17:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 18:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 19:32 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:07 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 21:05 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 20:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 22:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 22:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-05 12:36 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:00 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 15:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:27 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 16:57 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:37 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-05 13:11 -0600
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:41 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:33 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 15:47 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 15:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:57 -0400
your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:38 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:05 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:27 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:53 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:06 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:50 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 07:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 10:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:01 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:51 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-05 09:33 +0100
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-05 10:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-05 17:28 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 08:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:11 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:12 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:58 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 12:39 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:41 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:15 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:22 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 07:31 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 09:48 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 11:10 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 10:27 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 12:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 13:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:12 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:01 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:24 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:08 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:55 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:21 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 00:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 07:34 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:51 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:23 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 14:04 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 16:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 16:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:39 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 00:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 07:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 07:17 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 08:53 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 12:41 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:37 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:42 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 14:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 17:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 16:38 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 19:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 21:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 23:35 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 07:35 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 10:39 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:00 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 22:02 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 23:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:09 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 12:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 10:45 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 13:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:33 -0400
csiph-web