home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   comp.ai.philosophy      Perhaps we should ask SkyNet about this      59,235 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 58,920 of 59,235   
   olcott to Richard Damon   
   Re: have we been misusing incompleteness   
   31 Dec 25 15:59:24   
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/31/2025 3:56 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/31/25 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/31/2025 3:16 PM, Pierre Asselin wrote:   
   >>> In sci.logic Tristan Wibberley   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> [ ... ]   
   >>>> Then he defines a new system "P" which he uses to get even more   
   >>>> muddled,   
   >>>> leaves out the crucial elements of his proof because it's too easy to   
   >>>> get wrong,   
   >>>   
   >>> Gödel, muddled? He was the most meticulous sonovabitch that ever   
   >>> lived!   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> and Stephen Meyer says he does get it wrong; he seems to be   
   >>>> the only person in the world that ever checked.   
   >>>   
   >>> People have misunderstood Gödel and proved it by their comments.   
   >>> I don't know who Stephen Meyer is; my money is on Gödel.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Gödel proved that there cannot possibly exist any   
   >> sequence of inference steps in F prove that they   
   >> themselves do not exist.   
   >   
   > No *FINITE* sequence of inference steps.   
   >   
      
   Nothing can prove that itself does not   
   exist because that forms proof that it   
   does exist, dumbo.   
      
   > He also proves there *IS* an infinite sequence of steps   
   >   
   >>   
   >> He admitted this himself:   
   >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition   
   >> which asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)   
   >   
   > And proofs are finite.   
   >   
   > And that statement is made in the Meta System, and is talking about the   
   > base system.   
   >   
   > All you are doing is proving that you are an idiot, and maybe in your   
   > case there isn't a difference between You and a deterministic machine,   
   > as you are stuck in your bad programming.   
   >   
   > It seems you hae a broken CPU.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> Gödel, Kurt 1931.   
   >> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of   
   >> Principia Mathematica And Related Systems   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

              My 28 year goal has been to make
       "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
       reliably computable.

              This required establishing a new foundation
              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca