Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs

On 11/3/2024 3:10 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-02 11:05:20 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 11/2/2024 3:29 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-11-01 11:53:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 11/1/2024 3:47 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-31 14:18:40 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/31/2024 8:58 AM, joes wrote:

Am Thu, 31 Oct 2024 07:19:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 10/31/2024 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-30 12:16:02 +0000, olcott said:

On 10/30/2024 5:02 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-27 14:21:25 +0000, olcott said:

On 10/27/2024 3:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-26 13:17:52 +0000, olcott said:
>

Just imagine c functions that have enough memory to compute sums
and products of ASCII strings of digits using the same method that
people do.

Why just imagein? That is fairly easy to make. In some other
lanugages (e.g. Python, Javascript) it is alread in the library or
as a built-in feature.

OK next I want to see the actual Godel numbers and the arithmetic
steps used to derive them.

They can be found in any textbook of logic that discusses
undecidability.
If you need to ask about details tell us which book you are using.

Every single digit of the entire natural numbers not any symbolic name
for such a number.

Just evaluate the expressions shown in the books.

To me they are all nonsense gibberish. How one can convert a proof about
arithmetic into a proof about provability seems to be flatly false.

>

The key is selfreference. There is a number that encodes the sentence
"the sentence with the number [the number that this sentence encodes to]
is not provable".

>
Can you please hit return before you reply?
Your reply is always buried too close to what you are replying to.
>
We simply reject pathological self-reference lie
ZFC did and the issue ends.

>
You cannot reject any number from atrithmetic. If you do the result is
not arithmetic anymore.

>
I claims that his whole proof is nonsense until you
provide 1200% concrete proof otherwise.

>
Crackpots claim all all sorts of things. There is no way to change that
so there is no point to try.
>

All of arithmetic is inherently computable and
any non-arithmetic operation on a number is a type
mismatch error.

>
There are arithmetic functions and predicates that are not Turing
computable. For example, Busy Beaver.

>
Not computable because of self-reference is a different class
than not computable for other reasons.

 There is no self reference in Busy Beaver. Anyway, not Turing computable
is not Turing computable, whatever the reason.
 

Computing the square root of a pile of actual mud
is not Truing computable yet does not prove any
actual limit to computation. Likewise for simply
counting to infinity.

The Goldbach conjecture seems not computable only because it seems to
require an infinite number of steps.

 It seems so but that is not really known.
 

We do know that an infinite number of steps would
provide the correct answer after an infinite amount
of time. There is no after an infinite amount of time.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer