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 262,480 of 262,912    |
|    Mikko to olcott    |
|    =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Boiling_G=C3=B6del=27s_1    |
|    12 Jan 26 13:05:02    |
      XPost: sci.math, sci.math, sci.lang       XPost: comp.software-eng       From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi              On 11/01/2026 16:32, olcott wrote:       > On 1/11/2026 4:34 AM, Mikko wrote:       >> On 10/01/2026 18:19, olcott wrote:       >>> On 1/10/2026 3:25 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>>> On 08/01/2026 16:18, olcott wrote:       >>>>> On 1/8/2026 4:21 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>>>>> On 07/01/2026 15:06, olcott wrote:       >>>>>>> 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.       >>>>>>       >>>>>> An F where such sequence really exists then in that F both G and       >>>>>> the negation of G are provable.       >>>>>>       >>>>> 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.       >>>>> Does not exist because is contradicts itself.       >>>>       >>>> That conclusion needs the additional assumption that F is consistent,       >>>> which requires that the first order Peano arithmetic is consistent.       >>>       >>> It remains true for any proof system that does not       >>> contradict itself.       >>       >> Only for those where G can be constructed so that G is true if and       >> only if it is not provable. Such construction is prosible in Peano       >> arithmetic and many other systems but not in every system.       >       > Any Formal System having an unprovability operator ⊬       > and A := B // A [is defined as] B (self-reference operator)       > can reject this expression G := (F ⊬ G) as non-well-founded       > using Proof Theoretic Semantics.              That is a very restricted scope. For example, neither operator is in       the language of the first order Peano arithmetic. In addition, in       langages that have := don't have it as a symbol for a function or a       predicate but as sui generis with specific syntax rules, one of which       usually is that the symbol on the left side of := must not be used on       the right side. Therefore G := (F ⊬ G) is not in typical languages that       have := and ⊬.              --       Mikko              --- 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