Science and Technology news... :: View topic

John Jones · Guest

David C. Ullrich wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:42:00 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
wrote:

Then there>s no difference between proof and truth. Both are established
by laws.

Supposing for the sake of argument that the definition of truth
above is correct (it>s not, in fact it doesn>t even make much
sense, as would be clear to you if you understood what the
words meant): This is hilarious. If two things are both
"established by laws" then there is no difference between them?
[/quote]
It doesn>t matter what things are demonstrated as proved/true or by what
laws; the procedure (called proving, truing) is the same.

Newberry · Guest

On Oct 28, 12:40 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@remove-this.tamu.edu>
wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Newberry
newberr...@gmail.com> said:

Chris Menzel wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:03:08 +0100, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com
said:
...
It wasn>t the inaccuracies or accuracies that staggered me. It was
the fact that no-one challenged the Godellian project at all.

Perhaps because the idea of "challenging the Godellian project" is
about as silly as, say, "challenging the Euclidean project" of
classical geometry or "challenging the Leibnizian/Newtonian project"
of the calculus. Abysmally ignorant as you are of the actual
mathematics, however, no doubt you have some screwball idea of what
Goedel>s project was.

Any project that makes substantive claims based on assumptions made
in the formulation of the liar paradox can>t be credible.

Case in point.

The respondents on the programme seemed ok with the idea that Godel
was about liar paradox stuff.

Sure, properly framed. There is, in Goedel>s proof, an *analogy* with
"liar paradox stuff", the critical difference being that the notion of
truth in the latter -- which is essential to the generation of the
paradox -- is replaced by provability in the former. In the liar
paradox, you get a sentence that is true if and only if it is not true,
a genuine contradiction. In Goedel>s proof, you get a sentence that it
is true (in the natural numbers) if and only if it is not provable (in
the system at hand), which is perfectly consistent.

I think that divorcing truth and provability is paradoxical.

Perhaps in your own understanding of truth and provability. But the
fact is that those concepts in Goedel>s theorem are provably distinct,
and consistently so. If you think otherwise, then you simply don>t
understand the theorem.
[/quote]
Well, P & ~P is not the only example of inconsistency. Other examples
are omega-inconsistency, and provability not equivalent to truth.

David C. Ullrich · Guest

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:44:28 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

[quote]David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:42:00 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
wrote:

Then there>s no difference between proof and truth. Both are established
by laws.

Supposing for the sake of argument that the definition of truth
above is correct (it>s not, in fact it doesn>t even make much
sense, as would be clear to you if you understood what the
words meant): This is hilarious. If two things are both
"established by laws" then there is no difference between them?

It doesn>t matter what things are demonstrated as proved/true or by what
laws; the procedure (called proving, truing) is the same.
[/quote]
As always, your inability to get _anything_ straight is amusing.
Over and over you point out that A and B have something in
common and then conclude that they are the same.

Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the last thing
you said was true, that there>s no difference between the
procedure used to establish this and the procedure used
to establish that. Concluding that this and that are the
same thing is hilarious.

In words you might be able to understand: There>s no
difference between the procedure used to bake a cake
and the procedure used to bake a tuna casserole; the
procedure (called baking) is the same. Hence there>s
no difference between a cake and a tuna casserole.

You really _were_ born a few centuries, maybe millenia,
too late.

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)

John Jones · Guest

David C. Ullrich wrote:
[quote]On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:44:28 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:42:00 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
wrote:

Then there>s no difference between proof and truth. Both are established
by laws.
Supposing for the sake of argument that the definition of truth
above is correct (it>s not, in fact it doesn>t even make much
sense, as would be clear to you if you understood what the
words meant): This is hilarious. If two things are both
"established by laws" then there is no difference between them?
It doesn>t matter what things are demonstrated as proved/true or by what
laws; the procedure (called proving, truing) is the same.

As always, your inability to get _anything_ straight is amusing.
[/quote]
I laugh at my primitivism.

[quote]Over and over you point out that A and B have something in
common and then conclude that they are the same.
[/quote]
Try this. When Columbo solved the murders, he always used the same
process, called logic.

[quote]Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the last thing
you said was true, that there>s no difference between the
procedure used to establish this and the procedure used
to establish that. Concluding that this and that are the
same thing is hilarious.
[/quote]
If I deduce that planes fly because of air pressure, and the sun is hot
because of atomic processes, I don>t set up different ideas of proof or
truth.

[quote]In words you might be able to understand: There>s no
difference between the procedure used to bake a cake
and the procedure used to bake a tuna casserole; the
procedure (called baking) is the same. Hence there>s
[/quote]
The procedures are contingencies. Taken as a whole, each foloows the
same laws.

[quote]You really _were_ born a few centuries, maybe millenia,
too late.

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)[/quote]

John Jones · Guest

translogi wrote:
[quote]On 29 Oct, 10:56, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:08:33 -0700 (PDT), translogi

That can>t be quite wrong, since it makes no sense.
A _model_ of a statement is not true or false.

In any case, you seem to be giving an incorrect
definition of "valid", not "true".

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I stand corrected.
But what then is the proper description of a true statement?
(without mentioning proof, deduction ect.)

my idea was
p -> p is true because
for whatever you put in p the statement p -> p is true.
(and that is in my not-to-academic-idea a model but maybe it is only a
substitution instance not very schooled in the terminology to be
honnest)
[/quote]
How does p entail p? Was it deduced? From what? p alone is not true. p
is true in a context.

[quote]
But it is clear to me that John thinks they are the same without him
explaining (and proving!) why they are the same.

Maybe he even understands less than me about it.
(what is not very much indeed)
[/quote]
I don>t know what model of understanding you are talking about, nor what
you mean by 'John thinks they are the same without him
explaining (and proving!) why they are the same.'

John Jones · Guest

Chris Menzel wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 21:07:11 -0700 (PDT), Newberry
newberryxy@gmail.com> said:
Chris Menzel wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:03:08 +0100, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com
said:
...
It wasn>t the inaccuracies or accuracies that staggered me. It was
the fact that no-one challenged the Godellian project at all.
Perhaps because the idea of "challenging the Godellian project" is
about as silly as, say, "challenging the Euclidean project" of
classical geometry or "challenging the Leibnizian/Newtonian project"
of the calculus. Abysmally ignorant as you are of the actual
mathematics, however, no doubt you have some screwball idea of what
Goedel>s project was.
Any project that makes substantive claims based on assumptions made
in the formulation of the liar paradox can>t be credible.
Case in point.
The respondents on the programme seemed ok with the idea that Godel
was about liar paradox stuff.
Sure, properly framed. There is, in Goedel>s proof, an *analogy* with
"liar paradox stuff", the critical difference being that the notion of
truth in the latter -- which is essential to the generation of the
paradox -- is replaced by provability in the former. In the liar
paradox, you get a sentence that is true if and only if it is not true,
a genuine contradiction. In Goedel>s proof, you get a sentence that it
is true (in the natural numbers) if and only if it is not provable (in
the system at hand), which is perfectly consistent.
I think that divorcing truth and provability is paradoxical.

Perhaps in your own understanding of truth and provability. But the
fact is that those concepts in Goedel>s theorem are provably distinct,
[/quote]
bit of circular reasoning there.

[quote]and consistently so. If you think otherwise, then you simply don>t
understand the theorem.
[/quote]

translogi · Guest

On 1 Nov, 03:07, John Jones <jonescard...@aol.com> wrote:
[quote]translogi wrote:
On 29 Oct, 10:56, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 10:08:33 -0700 (PDT), translogi

That can>t be quite wrong, since it makes no sense.
A _model_ of a statement is not true or false.

In any case, you seem to be giving an incorrect
definition of "valid", not "true".

David C. Ullrich

my idea was
p -> p is true because
for whatever you put in p the statement p -> p is true.
(and that is in my not-to-academic-idea a model but maybe it is only a
substitution instance not very schooled in the terminology to be
honnest)

How does p entail p? Was it deduced? From what? p alone is not true. p
is true in a context.

[/quote]
YES INDEED FINALLY A SMART QUESTION
p -> p is deductable from most sets of axioms

the most common axiom set being

axiom 1 p -> (q -->p)
axiom 2 (p -> q) -> ((p -> (q -> r)) -> (p -> r)

axiom 1 hase many names (rule of weakening )
axiom 2 as well (forgot was it frege or hilbert)

and p -> p is DEDUCTABLE of them
so there is a PROOF of p->p in any systems that has the theorems p ->
(q -->p) and (p -> q) -> ((p -> (q -> r)) -> (p -> r)

Thanks for this great and importand question.

David C. Ullrich · Guest

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 03:02:57 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:

[quote]David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 21:44:28 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
wrote:

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:42:00 +0000, John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com
wrote:

Then there>s no difference between proof and truth. Both are established
by laws.
Supposing for the sake of argument that the definition of truth
above is correct (it>s not, in fact it doesn>t even make much
sense, as would be clear to you if you understood what the
words meant): This is hilarious. If two things are both
"established by laws" then there is no difference between them?
It doesn>t matter what things are demonstrated as proved/true or by what
laws; the procedure (called proving, truing) is the same.

As always, your inability to get _anything_ straight is amusing.

I laugh at my primitivism.

Over and over you point out that A and B have something in
common and then conclude that they are the same.

Try this. When Columbo solved the murders, he always used the same
process, called logic.
[/quote]
And because he used the same process in solving the murder of
Jack Smith and Betty Jones he deduced that there was no
difference between the murders? In particular that
Jack and Betty were the same person?

What you said was "Then there>s no difference between proof and
truth." That>s simply ridiculous.

[quote]Supposing, for the sake of argument, that the last thing
you said was true, that there>s no difference between the
procedure used to establish this and the procedure used
to establish that. Concluding that this and that are the
same thing is hilarious.

If I deduce that planes fly because of air pressure, and the sun is hot
because of atomic processes, I don>t set up different ideas of proof or
truth.
[/quote]
So? What you said is this: "Then there>s no difference between proof
and truth." How your mumblings about planes and atoms support
this is beyond me.

[quote]In words you might be able to understand: There>s no
difference between the procedure used to bake a cake
and the procedure used to bake a tuna casserole; the
procedure (called baking) is the same. Hence there>s

The procedures are contingencies. Taken as a whole, each foloows the
same laws.

You really _were_ born a few centuries, maybe millenia,
too late.

David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
[/quote]
David C. Ullrich

"Understanding Godel isn>t about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Logic Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3