G asserts its own unprovability in F

[Agent Smith]

PeteOlcott seems to have, per his own claims, discovered a hole in Gödel's theorems. For some reason Gödel figures high on the hit list of philosophers, both amateurs and veterans. PeteOlcott, the hot seat you're currently occupying, I've been there. Part of what you signed up for mon ami. Stay the course or change course, there are more options of course and you'll see them ... soon enough. Good luck. Apologies if I'm too dumb to follow your argument and if its any consolation, your interpretation of Gödel is crystal clear as far I'm concerned.

[PeteOlcott]

PeteOlcott seems to have, per his own claims, discovered a hole in Gödel's theorems. For some reason Gödel figures high on the hit list of philosophers, both amateurs and veterans. PeteOlcott, the hot seat you're currently occupying, I've been there. Part of what you signed up for mon ami. Stay the course or change course, there are more options of course and you'll see them ... soon enough. Good luck. Apologies if I'm too dumb to follow your argument and if its any consolation, your interpretation of Gödel is crystal clear as far I'm concerned.

The people that really should be in the hot seat are the one that required formal
systems to be determined to be incomplete on the basis that they cannot prove
self contradictory expressions of formal languages on the basis of this definition.

The conventional definition of incompleteness:
Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))

[Agent Smith]

PeteOlcott seems to have, per his own claims, discovered a hole in Gödel's theorems. For some reason Gödel figures high on the hit list of philosophers, both amateurs and veterans. PeteOlcott, the hot seat you're currently occupying, I've been there. Part of what you signed up for mon ami. Stay the course or change course, there are more options of course and you'll see them ... soon enough. Good luck. Apologies if I'm too dumb to follow your argument and if its any consolation, your interpretation of Gödel is crystal clear as far I'm concerned.

The people that really should be in the hot seat are the one that required formal
systems to be determined to be incomplete on the basis that they cannot prove
self contradictory expressions of formal languages on the basis of this definition.

The conventional definition of incompleteness:
Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))

My gut instinct is that we have a tiger (G, the Gödel sentence) by the tail. Don't, don't let go!!

Also, Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)), magnifique!

By the way,, how do we write in symbolic logic on this forum? LaTex? Math?

[PeteOlcott]

PeteOlcott seems to have, per his own claims, discovered a hole in Gödel's theorems. For some reason Gödel figures high on the hit list of philosophers, both amateurs and veterans. PeteOlcott, the hot seat you're currently occupying, I've been there. Part of what you signed up for mon ami. Stay the course or change course, there are more options of course and you'll see them ... soon enough. Good luck. Apologies if I'm too dumb to follow your argument and if its any consolation, your interpretation of Gödel is crystal clear as far I'm concerned.

The people that really should be in the hot seat are the one that required formal
systems to be determined to be incomplete on the basis that they cannot prove
self contradictory expressions of formal languages on the basis of this definition.

The conventional definition of incompleteness:
Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))

My gut instinct is that we have a tiger (G, the Gödel sentence) by the tail. Don't, don't let go!!

Also, Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)), magnifique!

Some of that is a quote that I found somewhere, I think that I added the
existential quantifier. It sums up the mathematical notion of incompleteness
as succinctly as possible.

[Agent Smith]

The people that really should be in the hot seat are the one that required formal
systems to be determined to be incomplete on the basis that they cannot prove
self contradictory expressions of formal languages on the basis of this definition.

The conventional definition of incompleteness:
Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ))

My gut instinct is that we have a tiger (G, the Gödel sentence) by the tail. Don't, don't let go!!

Also, Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)), magnifique!

Some of that is a quote that I found somewhere, I think that I added the
existential quantifier. It sums up the mathematical notion of incompleteness
as succinctly as possible.

Mathematics, I was told, involves study of classes of objects - discovering the relationships/properties therein. Can we do something with that understanding vis-à-vis the Gödel sentence?

[promethean75]

skep you're like a dick who ends up disagreeing with every damn body u talk to here. now i recognize that u are smarter than me, but i can also safely infer from this frequency of disagreement with others that u might be the one who's wrong in some or many given arguments. problem is I wouldn't know it cuz I'm not as smart as u or the other guy... so we need a qualified third party to analyze the problem and speak on its behalf. i therefore call wtf to the thread; the voice of mathematical reason amidst the howling mob of computer scientists.

if wtf agrees with PO, I'm gonna go with the PO/wtf team and you're out of my life, skep. Out.

[PeteOlcott]

skep you're like a dick who ends up disagreeing with every damn body u talk to here. now i recognize that u are smarter than me, but i can also safely infer from this frequency of disagreement with others that u might be the one who's wrong in some or many given arguments. problem is I wouldn't know it cuz I'm not as smart as u or the other guy... so we need a qualified third party to analyze the problem and speak on its behalf. i therefore call wtf to the thread; the voice of mathematical reason amidst the howling mob of computer scientists.

if wtf agrees with PO, I'm gonna go with the PO/wtf team and your out of my life, skep. Out.

Although his name indicates that he intends obnoxiousness over an honest
dialogue and that seems to be proven by his interactions with me, not every
reply that he makes on this forum has this same degree of obnoxiousness.

[PeteOlcott]

My gut instinct is that we have a tiger (G, the Gödel sentence) by the tail. Don't, don't let go!!

Also, Incomplete(T) ↔ ∃φ ((T ⊬ φ) ∧ (T ⊬ ¬φ)), magnifique!

Some of that is a quote that I found somewhere, I think that I added the
existential quantifier. It sums up the mathematical notion of incompleteness
as succinctly as possible.

Mathematics, I was told, involves study of classes of objects - discovering the relationships/properties therein. Can we do something with that understanding vis-à-vis the Gödel sentence?

Most math guys mistake their rote memorization of a bunch of complicated
things for actual understanding of how the different aspects of these things
interact with each other.

I created Minimal Type Theory so that a directed graph would show
the referential interactions between elements of formal expressions.
It turns out that cycles in this directed graph indicate expressions
of formal language that require infinite evaluation loops.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

It turns out that Prolog agrees with me on this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... l_sentence

This is how Prolog detects and rejects these expressions:
https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?pr ... rs_check/2

[Agent Smith]

Some of that is a quote that I found somewhere, I think that I added the
existential quantifier. It sums up the mathematical notion of incompleteness
as succinctly as possible.

Mathematics, I was told, involves study of classes of objects - discovering the relationships/properties therein. Can we do something with that understanding vis-à-vis the Gödel sentence?

Most math guys mistake their rote memorization of a bunch of complicated
things for actual understanding of how the different aspects of these things
interact with each other.

I created Minimal Type Theory so that a directed graph would show
the referential interactions between elements of formal expressions.
It turns out that cycles in this directed graph indicate expressions
of formal language that require infinite evaluation loops.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

It turns out that Prolog agrees with me on this:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... l_sentence

This is how Prolog detects and rejects these expressions:
https://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/man?pr ... rs_check/2

Is the following statement relevant in any way?

You cannot smoke in this room.

[Skepdick]

skep you're like a dick who ends up disagreeing with every damn body u talk to here.

now i recognize that u are smarter than me, but i can also safely infer from this frequency of disagreement with others that u might be the one who's wrong in some or many given arguments. problem is I wouldn't know it cuz I'm not as smart as u or the other guy... so we need a qualified third party to analyze the problem and speak on its behalf. i therefore call wtf to the thread; the voice of mathematical reason amidst the howling mob of computer scientists.

if wtf agrees with PO, I'm gonna go with the PO/wtf team and you're out of my life, skep. Out.

If you aren't smart enough to make up your own mind on these issues, you are definitely not smart enough to decide who is a "qualified third party"

The fact that you think wtf (a mathematician) is qualified speaks for itself...

Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true. --Bertrand Russell

[promethean75]

bro u just called me out on the argumentum ad verecundiam and the argumentum ad populum fallacies. u were like boom boom.

[PeteOlcott]

bro u just called me out on the argumentum ad verecundiam and the argumentum ad populum fallacies. u were like boom boom.

argumentum ad verecundiam is not a fallacy within inductive inference, yet it must be a qualified authority.
That a broad consensus of physicians agree on a medical opinion provides strong evidence (yet zero proof) that the opinion is correct.

[Impenitent]

argumentum ad verecundiam is not a fallacy...

the disagreeing asparagus concurs... wait, that's argumentum ad vegetable...

-Imp

[PeteOlcott]

argumentum ad verecundiam is not a fallacy...

the disagreeing asparagus concurs... wait, that's argumentum ad vegetable...

-Imp

argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy in that a broad consensus
of technical experts never conclusively proves that a statement is
true, yet does provide strong evidence that the statement is
reasonably plausible. Steve Jobs didn't see it this way and that
resulted in his death.

[promethean75]

"argumentum ad verecundiam is not a fallacy within inductive inference, yet it must be a qualified authority."

indeed peter.

skepdick wasted no time reminding me of the fact that just becuz i might think of wtf as a person who by his mathematical knowledge would be an authority on the matter, it doesn't mean that he would be right.

"That a broad consensus of physicians agree on a medical opinion provides strong evidence (yet zero proof) that the opinion is correct."

indeed peter.

just becuz a couple or more people consistently disagree with skepdick, I'd not be justified in claiming that it's more likely that he's wrong therefore.