Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question

Liste des GroupesRevenir à s logic 
Sujet : Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : sci.logic
Date : 22. Oct 2024, 16:04:37
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vf8eu5$1h5mj$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 10/22/2024 2:39 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-22 02:04:14 +0000, olcott said:
 
On 10/16/2024 11:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-10-16 14:27:09 +0000, olcott said:
>
The whole notion of undecidability is anchored in ignoring the fact that
some expressions of language are simply not truth bearers.
>
A formal theory is undecidable if there is no Turing machine that
determines whether a formula of that theory is a theorem of that
theory or not. Whether an expression is a truth bearer is not
relevant. Either there is a valid proof of that formula or there
is not. No third possibility.
>
>
After being continually interrupted by emergencies
interrupting other emergencies...
>
If the answer to the question: Is X a formula of theory Y
cannot be determined to be yes or no then the question
itself is somehow incorrect.
 There are several possibilities.
 A theory may be intentionally incomplete. For example, group theory
leaves several important question unanswered. There are infinitely
may different groups and group axioms must be true in every group.
 Another possibility is that a theory is poorly constructed: the
author just failed to include an important postulate.
 Then there is the possibility that the purpose of the theory is
incompatible with decidability, for example arithmetic.
 
An incorrect question is an expression of language that
is not a truth bearer translated into question form.
>
When "X a formula of theory Y" is neither true nor false
then "X a formula of theory Y" is not a truth bearer.
 Whether AB = BA is not answered by group theory but is alwasy
true or false about specific A and B and universally true in
some groups but not all.
 
See my most recent reply to Richard it sums up
my position most succinctly.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

Date Sujet#  Auteur
16 Oct 24 * A different perspective on undecidability70olcott
16 Oct 24 `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability69Mikko
16 Oct 24  +* Re: A different perspective on undecidability5olcott
16 Oct 24  i+* Re: A different perspective on undecidability3olcott
17 Oct 24  ii+- Re: A different perspective on undecidability1Richard Damon
21 Oct 24  ii`- Re: A different perspective on undecidability1Mikko
21 Oct 24  i`- Re: A different perspective on undecidability1Mikko
16 Oct 24  +* Re: A different perspective on undecidability10olcott
17 Oct 24  i+* Re: A different perspective on undecidability8Richard Damon
17 Oct 24  ii+* Re: A different perspective on undecidability2olcott
17 Oct 24  iii`- Re: A different perspective on undecidability1Richard Damon
17 Oct 24  ii`* Re: A different perspective on undecidability5olcott
19 Oct 24  ii `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability4Richard Damon
19 Oct 24  ii  `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability3olcott
19 Oct 24  ii   +- Re: A different perspective on undecidability1Richard Damon
21 Oct 24  ii   `- Re: A different perspective on undecidability1Mikko
21 Oct 24  i`- Re: A different perspective on undecidability1Mikko
22 Oct 24  `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question53olcott
22 Oct 24   +* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question9Richard Damon
22 Oct 24   i`* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question8olcott
22 Oct 24   i `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question7Richard Damon
22 Oct 24   i  `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question6olcott
23 Oct 24   i   `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question5Richard Damon
23 Oct 24   i    `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question --- PROGRESS4olcott
24 Oct 24   i     `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question --- PROGRESS3Richard Damon
24 Oct 24   i      `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question --- PROGRESS2olcott
25 Oct 24   i       `- Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question --- PROGRESS1Richard Damon
22 Oct 24   `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question43Mikko
22 Oct 24    `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question42olcott
24 Oct 24     `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question41Mikko
24 Oct 24      `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question40olcott
25 Oct 24       +- Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question1Richard Damon
25 Oct 24       `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question38Mikko
25 Oct 24        `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question37olcott
25 Oct 24         +- Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question1Richard Damon
26 Oct 24         `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question35Mikko
26 Oct 24          `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question34olcott
26 Oct 24           +* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question29Richard Damon
26 Oct 24           i`* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question28olcott
27 Oct 24           i `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question27Richard Damon
27 Oct 24           i  `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question26olcott
27 Oct 24           i   `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question25Richard Damon
27 Oct 24           i    `* The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---24olcott
27 Oct 24           i     +- Re: The philosophy of computation reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---1Richard Damon
6 Nov 24           i     +* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---8olcott
7 Nov 24           i     i+* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---4olcott
8 Nov 24           i     ii`* This philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---3olcott
8 Nov 24           i     ii +- Re: This philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---1wij
8 Nov 24           i     ii `- Re: This philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---1Richard Damon
7 Nov 24           i     i`* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---3Richard Damon
8 Nov 24           i     i `* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---2olcott
8 Nov 24           i     i  `- Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis ---1Richard Damon
10 Nov 24           i     `* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct14olcott
10 Nov 24           i      `* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct13olcott
10 Nov 24           i       `* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct12Richard Damon
10 Nov 24           i        `* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct11olcott
10 Nov 24           i         +* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct9joes
10 Nov 24           i         i`* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct8olcott
11 Nov 24           i         i `* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct7Richard Damon
13 Nov 24           i         i  `* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct6olcott
13 Nov 24           i         i   `* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct5Richard Damon
13 Nov 24           i         i    +* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct2olcott
14 Nov 24           i         i    i`- Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct1Richard Damon
13 Nov 24           i         i    `* Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct2olcott
14 Nov 24           i         i     `- Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct1Richard Damon
10 Nov 24           i         `- Re: The philosophy of logic reformulates existing ideas on a new basis --- infallibly correct1Richard Damon
27 Oct 24           `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question4Mikko
27 Oct 24            `* Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question3olcott
27 Oct 24             +- Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question1Richard Damon
28 Oct 24             `- Re: A different perspective on undecidability --- incorrect question1Mikko

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal