home bbs files messages ]

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