XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math
From: polcott333@gmail.com
On 11/17/2025 6:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 11/17/25 3:31 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> dart200 wrote:
>>> On 11/17/25 2:15 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> dart200 wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>>>> it kinda is on the verge of unquestionable orthodoxy given that
>>>>> someone akin to the status of eric cannot start a proper academic
>>>>> conversation on it
>>
>>>> There is no proper academic conversation to be had over 2 + 2 = 4. It
>>>> is firm, unassailable knowledge, unchallengeable. The Halting Theorem
>>>> is of the same status, proven using the same methodology from the same
>>>> fundamentals.
>>
>>> ur factual incorrect
>>
>>> basic addition is predicated on set theory,
>>
>>> the halting problem within computing is based on reckoning about turing
>>> machines,
>>
>>> literally read turing's paper /on computable numbers/ it never mentions
>>> elementary set theory
>>
>> You've twisted my statements into an interpretation they were never meant
>> to bare.
>
> u keep talking about some halting theorem as proven using the same
> fundamentals as 2+2... when that is just not the case
>
> computing doesn't have the same fundamentals as set theory. a turing
> machine does not derive justification from set theory, it is a self-
> justifying construct
>
>>
>>>> When somebody ignorant of this tries to start a "proper academic
>>>> conversation" about the Halting Theorem, it is only right that the said
>>>> conversation is nipped in the bud. When somebody knowledgeable does
>>>> this, it can only be construed as disparagement and insult of the whole
>>>> body of mathematicians.
>>
>>> ur elevating math into the realm of religion my dude,
>>
>> Not at all. I am a graduate mathematician, and thus knowledgeable in a
>> way that the general public isn't. I respect mathematical researchers,
>> who are at least as far ahead of me as I am of you. I expect and require
>> due respect for this expertise, just as I defer to the expertise of
>> others, no matter in what field.
>>
>> Religion doesn't come into it.
>
> you say that, but then you treat the fundamentals as unquestionable...
> that's how religious operate dude
>
Yes.
> heck even set theory is incomplete: the continuum hypothesis exists
> outside of current set theory
>
> "but all axiomatic systems are incomplete" .... yeah, yeah, yeah ...
> godel does not specify *how much* incomplete a system is
>
> you can't just pull godel out of ass every time you encounter a proposal
> that ur fundimentals can't explain, because godel does not specify
> limits of how complete a system can be beyond one very specific claim
>
The following Gödel G is semantically incorrect the
same way that Liar Paradox is incorrect. The directed
graph of their evaluation sequence has a cycle meaning
that their evaluation is stuck in an infinite loop.
G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝)
Directed Graph of evaluation sequence
00 ↔ 01 02
01 G
02 ¬ 03
03 Prov 04
04 Gödel_Number_of 01 // cycle
Prolog version
?- G = not(provable(F, G)).
G = not(provable(F, G)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(G, not(provable(F, G))).
false.
LP := ~True(LP) // A := B means A "is defined as" B
Directed Graph of evaluation sequence
00 ~ 01
01 True 00 // cycle
Prolog version
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> --
>>> a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
>>> basic semantic proofs like halting analysis
>>
>>> please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
>>
>>> ~ nick
>>
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
