Groups
Conversations
All groups and messages
Send feedback to Google
Help
Account
Search
Maps
YouTube
Play
News
Gmail
Meet
Chat
Contacts
Drive
Calendar
Translate
Photos
Duo
Chrome
Shopping
Finance
Docs
Sheets
Slides
Books
Blogger
Hangouts
Keep
Jamboard
Earth
Collections
Arts and Culture
Google Ads
Podcasts
Stadia
Travel
Forms
More from Google
Sign in
Groups
sci.philosophy
Conversations
About
sci.philosophy
1–30 of 445
Mark all as read
Report abusive group
0 selected
olcott
Nov 19
Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V19
typedef void (*ptr)(); int H(ptr x, ptr y) { x(y); // direct execution of P(P) return 1; } // Minimal
unread,
Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V19
typedef void (*ptr)(); int H(ptr x, ptr y) { x(y); // direct execution of P(P) return 1; } // Minimal
Nov 19
olcott
Nov 19
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V18 [ strawman error ]
On 11/19/2021 12:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-11-19 11:06, olcott wrote: >> On 11/
unread,
Re: Concise refutation of halting problem proofs V18 [ strawman error ]
On 11/19/2021 12:31 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-11-19 11:06, olcott wrote: >> On 11/
Nov 19
olcott
Oct 18
Re: My augmentation to foundationalism
On 10/17/2021 12:44 PM, Jim Burns wrote: > On 10/17/2021 10:23 AM, olcott wrote: > >>
unread,
Re: My augmentation to foundationalism
On 10/17/2021 12:44 PM, Jim Burns wrote: > On 10/17/2021 10:23 AM, olcott wrote: > >>
Oct 18
olcott
Aug 1
Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn [ succinct ]
On 8/1/2021 9:25 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 13:41:25 UTC+1, Ben
unread,
Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn [ succinct ]
On 8/1/2021 9:25 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 13:41:25 UTC+1, Ben
Aug 1
olcott
Aug 1
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ]
On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com>
unread,
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ]
On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com>
Aug 1
olcott
Aug 1
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ]
On 8/1/2021 7:12 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben
unread,
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ]
On 8/1/2021 7:12 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben
Aug 1
olcott
2
May 22
Eliminating the pathological self-reference error of the halting theorem (V8)
On 5/22/2021 1:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-05-22 11:46, olcott wrote: >> In
unread,
Eliminating the pathological self-reference error of the halting theorem (V8)
On 5/22/2021 1:04 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-05-22 11:46, olcott wrote: >> In
May 22
peteolcott
9/12/19
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben
On 9/12/2019 8:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > >> On
unread,
Re: Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness (Cantor was wrong about cardinality) Deceptive Strawman by Ben
On 9/12/2019 8:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: > >> On
9/12/19
peteolcott
3
8/27/19
The Principle of Explosion is the Non Sequitur Error
On 8/27/2019 11:27 AM, peteolcott wrote: > When-so-ever symbolic logic diverges from the deductive
unread,
The Principle of Explosion is the Non Sequitur Error
On 8/27/2019 11:27 AM, peteolcott wrote: > When-so-ever symbolic logic diverges from the deductive
8/27/19
peteolcott
8/8/19
Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness
"This sentence is unprovable" can be proven to be unprovable on the basis that its
unread,
Provably unprovable eliminates incompleteness
"This sentence is unprovable" can be proven to be unprovable on the basis that its
8/8/19
peteolcott
2
8/1/19
Tarski undefinability totally refuted by junior high school logic
On 5/22/2019 10:14 PM, peteolcott wrote: > Sound deductive inference necessitates true conclusions
unread,
Tarski undefinability totally refuted by junior high school logic
On 5/22/2019 10:14 PM, peteolcott wrote: > Sound deductive inference necessitates true conclusions
8/1/19
peteolcott
6/17/19
Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ The first incompleteness theorem states
unread,
Proof that Wittgenstein is correct about Gödel
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ The first incompleteness theorem states
6/17/19
peteolcott
5/27/19
Is this simplest version of the Liar Paradox: ∃LP (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) refutable?
LHS(LP) and RHS(⊢¬LP) of this expression: (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) (1) If LP was true then the LHS would be true
unread,
Is this simplest version of the Liar Paradox: ∃LP (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) refutable?
LHS(LP) and RHS(⊢¬LP) of this expression: (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) (1) If LP was true then the LHS would be true
5/27/19
peteolcott
5/22/19
How can this possibly fail to partition True(x) from Untrue(x) for every formal system?
When we specify that True(x) is the consequences of the subset of the of conventional formal proofs
unread,
How can this possibly fail to partition True(x) from Untrue(x) for every formal system?
When we specify that True(x) is the consequences of the subset of the of conventional formal proofs
5/22/19
peteolcott
5/18/19
Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence (v2)
HERE IS THE ONE SENTENCE: If the notion of True(x) is defined as provable from axioms and axioms are
unread,
Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence (v2)
HERE IS THE ONE SENTENCE: If the notion of True(x) is defined as provable from axioms and axioms are
5/18/19
peteolcott
5/16/19
Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence
If the notion of true is defined as provable from axioms and axioms are defined to be finite strings
unread,
Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence
If the notion of true is defined as provable from axioms and axioms are defined to be finite strings
5/16/19
peteolcott
5/15/19
Defining a decidability decider that consistently decides decidability
I am going to explain this view in terms of the conventional notion of formal proofs of mathematical
unread,
Defining a decidability decider that consistently decides decidability
I am going to explain this view in terms of the conventional notion of formal proofs of mathematical
5/15/19
peteolcott
5/15/19
Deductively Sound Formal Proofs --- (v9)
In AI research the following can be used to anchor the notion of [truth conditional semantics] in a
unread,
Deductively Sound Formal Proofs --- (v9)
In AI research the following can be used to anchor the notion of [truth conditional semantics] in a
5/15/19
peteolcott
11
5/13/19
Re: Opportunities arising from the refutation of Godel's incompleteness theorem [--its really not that hard--]
On 5/11/2019 5:41 AM, xilog wrote: > The material you refer to from Mendelson is standard and
unread,
Re: Opportunities arising from the refutation of Godel's incompleteness theorem [--its really not that hard--]
On 5/11/2019 5:41 AM, xilog wrote: > The material you refer to from Mendelson is standard and
5/13/19
peteolcott
5/13/19
I am finally being understood to be correct
The following portion of what I have been saying is now finally clear enough to be understood to be
unread,
I am finally being understood to be correct
The following portion of what I have been saying is now finally clear enough to be understood to be
5/13/19
peteolcott
5/13/19
Deductively sound formal proofs (v7)
Mendelson, Elliott 2015. Introduction to Mathematical Logic (sixth edition) page 27-28 http://
unread,
Deductively sound formal proofs (v7)
Mendelson, Elliott 2015. Introduction to Mathematical Logic (sixth edition) page 27-28 http://
5/13/19
peteolcott
2
5/12/19
Deductively sound formal proofs (v6)
On 5/12/2019 1:11 AM, peteolcott wrote: > All that we have to do to provide > [deductively
unread,
Deductively sound formal proofs (v6)
On 5/12/2019 1:11 AM, peteolcott wrote: > All that we have to do to provide > [deductively
5/12/19
peteolcott
5/11/19
Semantic Tautologies
Within the correctly combined semantic meaning of conventional {formal proofs of mathematical logic}
unread,
Semantic Tautologies
Within the correctly combined semantic meaning of conventional {formal proofs of mathematical logic}
5/11/19
peteolcott
3
5/10/19
Deductively Sound Formal Proofs --- (v2)
Within the conventional notion of formal proof: Γ ⊢ C http://liarparadox.org/Provable_Mendelson.pdf ¬
unread,
Deductively Sound Formal Proofs --- (v2)
Within the conventional notion of formal proof: Γ ⊢ C http://liarparadox.org/Provable_Mendelson.pdf ¬
5/10/19
peteolcott
5/10/19
Re: Opportunities arising from the refutation of Godel's incompleteness theorem [--it is not that difficult--]
On 5/10/2019 4:10 AM, xilog wrote: > To be specific, a description of a relatively recent proof in
unread,
Re: Opportunities arising from the refutation of Godel's incompleteness theorem [--it is not that difficult--]
On 5/10/2019 4:10 AM, xilog wrote: > To be specific, a description of a relatively recent proof in
5/10/19
peteolcott
4
5/10/19
Re: Terse defence of Godel (is refuted)
On 5/7/2019 5:38 PM, xilog wrote: > I will pass over your comment on Tarski since I lack a
unread,
Re: Terse defence of Godel (is refuted)
On 5/7/2019 5:38 PM, xilog wrote: > I will pass over your comment on Tarski since I lack a
5/10/19
peteolcott
5/9/19
Defining Complete and consistent formal systems of mathematical logic
Within the sound deductive inference model True(x) is formalized as: (a) Axioms stipulated as
unread,
Defining Complete and consistent formal systems of mathematical logic
Within the sound deductive inference model True(x) is formalized as: (a) Axioms stipulated as
5/9/19
peteolcott
2
5/8/19
Is this logic sentence true or false: ∃G (G ↔ ¬Provable(G))
On 5/7/2019 10:18 PM, peteolcott wrote: > My hypothesis is there is no such G because G ↔ ¬
unread,
Is this logic sentence true or false: ∃G (G ↔ ¬Provable(G))
On 5/7/2019 10:18 PM, peteolcott wrote: > My hypothesis is there is no such G because G ↔ ¬
5/8/19
peteolcott
5/4/19
Deductively Sound Formal Proofs (Eliminates undecidability)
Using the sound deductive inference model as the basis of the a notion of a formal system defines [
unread,
Deductively Sound Formal Proofs (Eliminates undecidability)
Using the sound deductive inference model as the basis of the a notion of a formal system defines [
5/4/19
peteolcott
5/2/19
Terse Refutation of Tarski and Gödel
Both Tarski and Gödel “prove” that provability can diverge from Truth. When we boil their claim down
unread,
Terse Refutation of Tarski and Gödel
Both Tarski and Gödel “prove” that provability can diverge from Truth. When we boil their claim down
5/2/19
Search
Clear search
Close search
Google apps
Main menu