Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.logic    |    Logic -- math, philosophy & computationa    |    262,912 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 262,203 of 262,912    |
|    Richard Damon to olcott    |
|    Re: Thought this through for 30,000 hour    |
|    28 Dec 25 07:00:31    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy       From: news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net              On 12/27/25 11:40 PM, olcott wrote:       > On 12/27/2025 7:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:       >> On 12/27/25 7:54 PM, olcott wrote:       >>> A system such all semantic meaning of the formal       >>> system is directly encoded in the syntax of the       >>> formal language of the formal system making       >>> ∀x ∈ L (Provable(L,x) ≡ True(L,x))       >>       >> Which is IMPOSSIBLE, as for any sufficiently expressive system, as it       >> has been shown that for a system that can express the Natural Numbers,       >> we can build a measure of meaning into the elements that they did not       >> originally have.       >>       >       > It would seem that way from your limited frame-of-reference.       > It turns out that the entire body of general knowledge       > expressed in language can be expressed this way.              Nope. It is a FACT.              Try to do it. The problem is you can't prevent extra meaning from being       added to the numbers as Godel did.              Part of the issue is that a system can't contain the complete       enumeration of its axioms, as each asignment of an axiom to a value       become an axiom, and thus the system becomes infinite in size.              All you have done is wasted your life and destroyed your families       reputation by intentionally making yourself ignorant of the basic facts       of logic out of fear they would "brainwash you", when in fact, you had       brainwashed yourself to be ignorant.              >       >>>       >>> "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"       >>> is reliably computable by the above formalism.       >>       >> But it can only apply to limited systems, namely the systems smaller       >> than the proof of incompleteness specified.       >>       >>>       >>> I have thought this through for 30,000 hours over       >>> 28 years.       >>>       >>>       >>       >> And you should have figured out its problems a lot earlier.       >       >              --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca