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 58,953 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Richard Damon    |
|    Re: Computing truth values from finite s    |
|    03 Jan 26 18:14:07    |
   
   XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.lang   
   XPost: sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/3/2026 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 1/3/26 5:59 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 1/3/2026 4:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 1/3/26 5:15 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >>>> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >>>> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Thus making   
   >>>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"   
   >>>> inherently computable.   
   >>>>   
   >>> Nope.   
   >>>   
   >>> How does that answer the question of the truth of the statement:   
   >>>   
   >>> All Even Number greater than 2 are the sum of two primes.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> That is not a member of the body of knowledge.   
   >> My system only applies to the body of knowledge.   
   >   
   > And thus is admittedly, not a logic system, which is about a body of   
   > truths derived from axioms and rules.   
   >   
   > In fact, you system can never learn anything new, as that wasn't part of   
   > that body, so isn't allowed.   
   >   
   > So, all you are doing is admitting you have been on a wrong track for   
   > decades, you you were never actually looking at logic systems.   
   >   
      
   We are probably already too late and the world   
   will be killed by climate change hired liars.   
      
   My system could have prevented that but having   
   trollish fun carried more weight than preventing   
   the end of life an Earth.   
      
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> That statement, or its inverse MUST be true, but hasn't been able to   
   >>> be computed.   
   >>>   
   >>> All you are doing is repeating the errors of Early Hilbert, because   
   >>> you failed to learn form history, so are repeating ancient errors.   
   >>   
   >> Not at all. I added your objections to my full system.   
   >>   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 Olcott
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca