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 262,728 of 262,912    |
|    olcott to Richard Damon    |
|    Re: The Halting Problem asks for too muc    |
|    25 Jan 26 13:05:57    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math       From: polcott333@gmail.com              On 1/25/2026 12:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:       > On 1/25/26 8:30 AM, olcott wrote:       >> On 1/25/2026 5:24 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>> On 24/01/2026 16:18, olcott wrote:       >>>> On 1/24/2026 2:23 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>>>> On 22/01/2026 18:47, olcott wrote:       >>>>>> On 1/22/2026 2:21 AM, Mikko wrote:       >>>>>       >>>>>>> Anyway, what can be provven that way is true aboout PA. You can deny       >>>>>>> the proof but you cannot perform what is meta-provably impossible.       >>>>>       >>>>>> The meta-proof does not exist in the axioms of PA       >>>>>> and that is the reason why an external truth in       >>>>>> an external model cannot be proved internally in PA.       >>>>>> All of these years it was only a mere conflation       >>>>>> error.       >>>>>       >>>>> It is perfectly clear which is which. But every proof in PA is also       >>>>> a proof in Gödel's metatheory.       >>>>       >>>> ∀x ∈ PA ( True(PA, x) ≡ PA ⊢ x )       >>>> ∀x ∈ PA ( False(PA, x) ≡ PA ⊢ ¬x )       >>>> ∀x ∈ PA ( ¬WellFounded(PA, x) ≡       >>>> (¬True(PA, x) ∧ (¬False(PA, x)))       >>>       >>> Those sentences don't mean anything without specificantions of a       >>> language and a theory that gives them some meaning.       >>>       >>       >> In other word you do not understand standard notational       >> conventions that define True for PA as provable from the       >> axioms of PA and False for PA as refutable from the axioms       >> of PA.       >>       >       > And you don't understand that those definitions aren't defined in a       > proof theoretic semantics.       >       > PA ⊢ x       >       > can't be evaluated itself in proof theoretic semantics and always get a       > value, as you can't PROVE that statement.       >       >              I have carefully researched Proof theoretic semantics       from its original papers and will be able to tutor you       on this basis pretty soon.                     --       Copyright 2026 Olcott |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca