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

On 10/24/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 10/24/2024 6:23 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 10/24/24 10:28 AM, olcott wrote:

On 10/24/2024 8:51 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-23 13:15:00 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/23/2024 2:28 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-22 14:02:01 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/22/2024 2:13 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-21 13:52:28 +0000, olcott said:
>

On 10/21/2024 3:41 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-10-20 15:32:45 +0000, olcott said:
>

The actual barest essence for formal systems and computations
is finite string transformation rules applied to finite strings.

>
Before you can start from that you need a formal theory that
can be interpreted as a theory of finite strings.

>
Not at all. The only theory needed are the operations
that can be performed on finite strings:
concatenation, substring, relational operator ...

>
You may try with an informal foundation but you need to make sure
that it is sufficicently well defined and that is easier with a
formal theory.
>

The minimal complete theory that I can think of computes
the sum of pairs of ASCII digit strings.

>
That is easily extended to Peano arithmetic.
>
As a bottom layer you need some sort of logic. There must be unambifuous
rules about syntax and inference.
>

>
I already wrote this in C a long time ago.
It simply computes the sum the same way
that a first grader would compute the sum.
>
I have no idea how the first grade arithmetic
algorithm could be extended to PA.

>
Basically you define that the successor of X is X + 1. The only
primitive function of Peano arithmetic is the successor. Addition
and multiplication are recursively defined from the successor
function. Equality is often included in the underlying logic but
can be defined recursively from the successor function and the
order relation is defined similarly.
>
Anyway, the details are not important, only that it can be done.
>

>
First grade arithmetic can define a successor function
by merely applying first grade arithmetic to the pair
of ASCII digits strings of [0-1]+ and "1".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms
>
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e. an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems
>
When we boil this down to its first-grade arithmetic foundation
this would seem to mean that there are some cases where the
sum of a pair of ASCII digit strings cannot be computed.

>
No, it does not. Incompleteness theorem does not apply to artihmetic
that only has addition but not multiplication.
>
The incompleteness theorem is about theories that have quantifiers.
A specific arithmetic expression (i.e, with no variables of any kind)
always has a well defined value.
>

>
So lets goes the next step and add multiplication to the algorithm:
(just like first grade arithmetic we perform multiplication
on arbitrary length ASCII digit strings just like someone would
do with pencil and paper).
>
Incompleteness cannot be defined. until we add variables and
quantification: There exists an X such that X * 11 = 132.
Every detail of every step until we get G is unprovable in F.
>

>
Yes, Incompleteness requires a certain degree of suffistication in the operations allowed, but that is all part of the "properties of the Natural Numbers".
>
There is a critical boundary, beyound which if a logic system supports it, it must be incomplete. Simple system can be complete.
>

 The inability to prove that incoherent expressions
are true such as the Tarski Undefinability theorem
is only because they are freaking incoherent.
 

But the expressions are only "incoherent" to stupid people like you.
People who know what they are talking about understand what those expression mean.
All you are doing is proving that you don't undertstand what you are talking about, and that you think lying is a correct form of logical proof.
This shows in the fact that your "arguements" seem to always be based on using known logical fallacies.