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 58,988 of 59,235    |
|    olcott to Mikko    |
|    =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Boiling_G=C3=B6del=27s_1    |
|    07 Jan 26 07:06:37    |
      XPost: comp.theory, comp.software-eng, sci.logic       XPost: sci.math       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 1/7/2026 6:10 AM, Mikko wrote:       > On 06/01/2026 16:02, olcott wrote:       >> On 1/6/2026 7:23 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>> On 06/01/2026 02:24, Oleksiy Gapotchenko wrote:       >>>> Just an external observation:       >>>>       >>>> A lot of tech innovations in software optimization area get       >>>> discarded from the very beginning because people who work on them       >>>> perceive the halting problem as a dogma.       >>>       >>> It is a dogma in the same sense as 2 * 3 = 6 is a dogma: a provably       >>> true sentence of a certain theory.       >>>       >>       >> ...We are therefore confronted with a proposition which       >> asserts its own unprovability. 15 … (Gödel 1931:40-41)       >>       >> Gödel, Kurt 1931.       >> On Formally Undecidable Propositions of       >> Principia Mathematica And Related Systems       >>       >> F ⊢ G_F ↔ ¬Prov_F (⌜G_F⌝)       >> "F proves that: G_F is equivalent to       >> Gödel_Number(G_F) is not provable in F"       >> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/#FirIncTheCom       >>       >> Stripping away the inessential baggage using a formal       >> language with its own self-reference operator and       >> provability operator (thus outside of arithmetic)       >>       >> G := (F ⊬ G) // G asserts its own unprovability in F       >>       >> A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference       >> steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.       >       > From the way G is constructed it can be meta-proven that either              Did you hear me stutter ?       A proof of G in F would be a sequence of inference       steps in F that prove that they themselves do not exist.              > G is true and unprovable in F (which means that F is incomplete)       > or G is false and provable in F (which means that F is inconsistent).       >                     --       Copyright 2026 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca