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 262,858 of 262,912    |
|    Mikko to olcott    |
|    Re: on ignoring the undecidable    |
|    10 Feb 26 11:06:02    |
      XPost: comp.theory, sci.math       From: mikko.levanto@iki.fi              On 09/02/2026 17:36, olcott wrote:       > On 2/9/2026 8:57 AM, Mikko wrote:       >> On 07/02/2026 18:43, olcott wrote:       >>> On 2/7/2026 10:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:       >>>> On 2/7/26 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:       >>>>> On 2/7/2026 8:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:       >>>>>> On 2/6/26 11:04 PM, olcott wrote:       >>>>>>> When a truth predicate is given the input:       >>>>>>> "What time is it?"       >>>>>>> and is required to say True or False       >>>>>>> the only correct answer is BAD INPUT       >>>>>>       >>>>>> Nope, as the statement is NOT "True", thus it is false.       >>>>>>       >>>>>> Unless you are asserting that logic doesn't exist in the domain of       >>>>>> the non-contray excluded middle where most logic assumes to live.       >>>>>>       >>>>>       >>>>> Dead obvious Type mismatch error.       >>>>>       >>>>       >>>> And "Type mismatches" are not true statements.       >>>>       >>>> I guess you are admitting that you system isn't "binary", but       >>>> violates the principle of the excluded middle.       >>>       >>> When we extend formal systems to include formalized       >>> natural language we often encounter expressions that       >>> are not truth apt.       >>>       >>> Conventional logic and math have been paralyzed for       >>> many decades by trying to force-fit semantically       >>> ill-formed expressions into the box of True or False.       >>       >> Logic is not paralyzed. Separating semantics from inference rules       >> ensures that semantic problems don't affect the study of proofs       >> and provability.       >       > Then you end up with screwy stuff such as the psychotic       > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion              That you call it psychotic does not make it less useful. Often an       indirect proof is simpler than a direct one, and therefore more       convincing. But without the priciple of explosion it might be       harder or even impossible to find one, depending on what there is       instead.              --       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