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

Liste des GroupesRevenir à c theory 
Sujet : Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs
De : mikko.levanto (at) *nospam* iki.fi (Mikko)
Groupes : comp.theory
Date : 27. Oct 2024, 09:37:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : -
Message-ID : <vfku48$78d0$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
User-Agent : Unison/2.2
On 2024-10-26 13:17:52 +0000, olcott said:

On 10/26/2024 3:02 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-25 13:31:16 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 10/25/2024 3:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-24 14:28:35 +0000, olcott said:
 
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.
 Incompleteness is easier to define if you also add the power operator
to the arithmetic. Otherwise the expressions of provability and
incompleteness are more complicated. They become much simpler if
instead of arithmetic the fundamental theory is a theory of finite
strings. As you already observed, arithmetic is easy to do with
finite strings. The opposite is possible but much more complicated.
 The power operator can be built from repeated operations of
the multiply operator.
 It is possible but to say that x is the z'th power of y is overly
complicated with a first order formula using just addition and
multiplication.
 
 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.
--
Mikko

Date Sujet#  Auteur
18 Oct 24 * A state transition diagram proves ...142olcott
18 Oct 24 `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ...141Richard Damon
18 Oct 24  `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ...140olcott
18 Oct 24   `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ...139Richard Damon
18 Oct 24    `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ...138olcott
18 Oct 24     `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ...137Richard Damon
18 Oct 24      `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS136olcott
18 Oct 24       +* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS24joes
18 Oct 24       i`* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS23olcott
18 Oct 24       i +- Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS -- I only wanted to cross post this key break through once.1olcott
18 Oct 24       i +* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS14joes
18 Oct 24       i i`* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS13olcott
18 Oct 24       i i `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS12joes
18 Oct 24       i i  `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS11olcott
18 Oct 24       i i   `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS10Alan Mackenzie
18 Oct 24       i i    `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS9olcott
18 Oct 24       i i     `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS8joes
18 Oct 24       i i      `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS7olcott
18 Oct 24       i i       +- Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS1olcott
19 Oct 24       i i       `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS5joes
19 Oct 24       i i        `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS4olcott
19 Oct 24       i i         `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS3Richard Damon
19 Oct 24       i i          `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS2olcott
19 Oct 24       i i           `- Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS1Richard Damon
19 Oct 24       i `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS7Richard Damon
19 Oct 24       i  `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS6olcott
19 Oct 24       i   `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS5Richard Damon
19 Oct 24       i    `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS4olcott
19 Oct 24       i     `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS3Richard Damon
19 Oct 24       i      `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS2olcott
19 Oct 24       i       `- Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS1Richard Damon
19 Oct 24       `* Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS111Richard Damon
19 Oct 24        +- Re: A state transition diagram proves ... GOOD PROGRESS1olcott
19 Oct 24        `* THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS109olcott
19 Oct 24         `* Re: THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS108Richard Damon
19 Oct 24          `* Re: THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS107olcott
19 Oct 24           `* Re: THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS106Richard Damon
19 Oct 24            `* Re: THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS105olcott
19 Oct 24             `* Re: THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS104Richard Damon
20 Oct 24              `* Re: THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS103olcott
20 Oct 24               `* Re: THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS102Richard Damon
20 Oct 24                `* I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF101olcott
20 Oct 24                 +* Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF99Richard Damon
20 Oct 24                 i`* Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF98olcott
20 Oct 24                 i +* Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF10Richard Damon
20 Oct 24                 i i+* Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF2olcott
20 Oct 24                 i ii`- Re: I have always been incorrect about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF1Richard Damon
20 Oct 24                 i i+* Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF2olcott
20 Oct 24                 i ii`- Re: I have always been incorrect about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF1Richard Damon
20 Oct 24                 i i`* Deriving X from the finite set of FooBar preserving operations --- membership algorithm for X in L5olcott
21 Oct 24                 i i +- Re: Deriving X from the finite set of FooBar preserving operations --- membership algorithm for X in L1Richard Damon
21 Oct 24                 i i `* Re: Deriving X from the finite set of FooBar preserving operations --- membership algorithm for X in L3Richard Damon
21 Oct 24                 i i  `* Re: Deriving X from the finite set of FooBar preserving operations --- membership algorithm for X in L2olcott
21 Oct 24                 i i   `- Re: Deriving X from the finite set of FooBar preserving operations --- membership algorithm for X in L1Richard Damon
21 Oct 24                 i `* Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF87Mikko
21 Oct 24                 i  `* Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF86olcott
22 Oct 24                 i   `* Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF85Mikko
22 Oct 24                 i    `* Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF84olcott
23 Oct 24                 i     `* Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF83Mikko
23 Oct 24                 i      `* Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs82olcott
24 Oct 24                 i       +- Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs1Richard Damon
24 Oct 24                 i       `* Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs80Mikko
24 Oct 24                 i        `* Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs79olcott
25 Oct 24                 i         +* Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs5Richard Damon
25 Oct 24                 i         i`* Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs4olcott
25 Oct 24                 i         i `* Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs3Richard Damon
25 Oct 24                 i         i  `* Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs2olcott
25 Oct 24                 i         i   `- Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs1Richard Damon
25 Oct 24                 i         `* Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs73Mikko
25 Oct 24                 i          `* Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs72olcott
25 Oct 24                 i           +* Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs36Richard Damon
25 Oct 24                 i           i`* Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers35olcott
26 Oct 24                 i           i `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers34Richard Damon
26 Oct 24                 i           i  `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers33olcott
26 Oct 24                 i           i   +* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers30Richard Damon
26 Oct 24                 i           i   i`* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers29olcott
26 Oct 24                 i           i   i +- Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers1Richard Damon
27 Oct 24                 i           i   i `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers27Mikko
27 Oct 24                 i           i   i  +* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers2joes
28 Oct 24                 i           i   i  i`- Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers1Mikko
27 Oct 24                 i           i   i  `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers24olcott
27 Oct 24                 i           i   i   +- Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers1Richard Damon
28 Oct 24                 i           i   i   `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers22Mikko
28 Oct 24                 i           i   i    `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers21olcott
29 Oct 24                 i           i   i     +* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers5Richard Damon
29 Oct 24                 i           i   i     i`* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers4olcott
29 Oct 24                 i           i   i     i +* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers2André G. Isaak
29 Oct 24                 i           i   i     i i`- Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers1olcott
29 Oct 24                 i           i   i     i `- Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers1Richard Damon
29 Oct 24                 i           i   i     `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers15Mikko
29 Oct 24                 i           i   i      `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers14olcott
30 Oct 24                 i           i   i       +- Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers1Richard Damon
30 Oct 24                 i           i   i       `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers12Mikko
30 Oct 24                 i           i   i        `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers11olcott
31 Oct 24                 i           i   i         +- Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers1Richard Damon
31 Oct 24                 i           i   i         `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers9Mikko
31 Oct 24                 i           i   i          `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers8olcott
31 Oct 24                 i           i   i           +* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers3joes
31 Oct 24                 i           i   i           i`* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers2olcott
1 Nov 24                 i           i   i           i `- Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers1Richard Damon
1 Nov 24                 i           i   i           +- Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers1Richard Damon
1 Nov 24                 i           i   i           `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers3Mikko
26 Oct 24                 i           i   `* Re: Gödel's actual proof and deriving all of the digits of the actual Gödel numbers2joes
26 Oct 24                 i           `* Re: Peano Axioms anchored in First Grade Arithmetic on ASCII Digit String pairs35Mikko
20 Oct 24                 `- Re: I have always been correct about emulating termination analyzers --- PROOF1Richard Damon

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal