Philosophy Now Forum

Univalence wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 12:55 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 12:50 am TRUTH IS ONLY A SET OF MUTUALLY INTERLOCKING SEMANTIC TAUTOLOGIES, THUS
MAKING PROVABILITY NO MORE THAN VERIFYING THE CONNECTION BETWEEN TAUTOLOGIES.
IF THERE IS NO PROVABILITY THEN THERE IS NO CONNECTION AND THUS NO TRUTH.

You can yammer on and on about convoluted nonsense yet the above has remained the
nature of truth since the beginning of time.

Try using a larger font perhaps? One that's in proportion to your ignorance.

If you are going to be verifying the connections between nodes in a graph, you really ought to figure out who put the edges there in the first place and why.

Intent is a tricky thing to formalise.

And yet another red herring of total irrelevance. As far as the nature of truth goes
it doesn't matter if Popeye the sailor man is the one that connected the nodes on the graph.
It also doesn't matter why they are there.

I created Minimal Type Theory
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... y_YACC_BNF

to automatically translate formal expressions of language into their corresponding directed
acyclic graphs and found that all pf the self-reference paradoxes specify graphs with cycles.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 1:17 am to automatically translate formal expressions of language into their corresponding directed
acyclic graphs and found that all pf the self-reference paradoxes specify graphs with cycles.

And?

Should we go ahead and give up all ontologies which make explicit use of cyclical graphs because Pete Olcott can't tolerate linguistic paradoxes?

I guess Djikstra wasted his life coming up with that algorithm.

You are blindly optimising for paradox-reduction while paying absolutely no attention to pragmatism. Typical idealist.

I notice you are still flexing your intellect at me rather than collecting your $6 million

Univalence wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 1:32 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 1:17 am to automatically translate formal expressions of language into their corresponding directed
acyclic graphs and found that all pf the self-reference paradoxes specify graphs with cycles.

And?

Should we go ahead and give up all ontologies which make explicit use of cyclical graphs because Pete Olcott can't tolerate linguistic paradoxes?

I guess Djikstra wasted his life coming up with that algorithm.

You are blindly optimising for paradox-reduction while paying absolutely no attention to pragmatism. Typical idealist.

I notice you are still flexing your intellect at me rather than collecting your $6 million

He was not talking about knowledge ontologies. Why do you keep grasping at straws to rebut me?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 1:45 am He was not talking about knowledge ontologies. Why do you keep grasping at straws to rebut me?

Djikstra was talking about graphs, was he not?
You are representing your knowledge-ontology as a directed graph. Are you not?

Djikstra's algorithm is applicable to your ontology.

You nimrod.

Univalence wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 1:49 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 1:45 am He was not talking about knowledge ontologies. Why do you keep grasping at straws to rebut me?

Djikstra was talking about graphs, was he not?
You are representing your knowledge-ontology as a directed graph. Are you not?

Djikstra's algorithm is applicable to your ontology.

You nimrod.

Ah I see. It was my mistake to ever take you seriously.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 2:22 am Ah I see. It was my mistake to ever take you seriously.

No. The error is all mine.

I mistook you for somebody coachable.

Gentle reminder that you can skip the verbal judo and go directly for the $6 million

Univalence wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 2:30 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 2:22 am Ah I see. It was my mistake to ever take you seriously.

No. The error is all mine.

I mistook you for somebody coachable.

How can you possibly "coach" me if you don't bother to take five minutes to even understand what I am saying? You begin with the unshakable presumption that I must be incorrect as if your gut instincts are inherently infallible.

Any average high school student could understand that sound deduction is complete and consistent. You cover your ears with your hands and say blah blah blah, I can't hear you!

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 2:33 am How can you possibly "coach" me if you don't bother to take five minutes to even understand what I am saying? You begin with the unshakable presumption that I must be incorrect as if your gut instincts are inherently infallible.

You don't need me to tell you that you are correct.

If you have solved the halting problem you can directly collect your $6 million.

Univalence wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 2:37 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 2:33 am How can you possibly "coach" me if you don't bother to take five minutes to even understand what I am saying? You begin with the unshakable presumption that I must be incorrect as if your gut instincts are inherently infallible.

You don't need me to tell you that you are correct.

If you have solved the halting problem you can directly collect your $6 million.

Although you have proven your ability, I was fascinated by Curry-Howard correspondence, I never heard of that before, your last comment shows that you can't even tell the difference between 6 and 1. Also how long it take an algorithm to find an answer it not really related to computability as long as the time is less than eternity.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 2:53 am Your last comment shows that you can't even tell the difference between 6 and 1.

There are 6 problems on that page. Each one is worth $1 million.

If you solve the halting problem, you can solve all 6.

I am sure you can multiply 6 by 1 without a calculator.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 2:53 am Also how long it take an algorithm to find an answer it not really related to computability as long as the time is less than eternity.

Everything pertaining to decidability is a computational problem.

More of Hilbert's antics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entscheidungsproblem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

And the hypothetical machine which can solve any decision problem (even the halting problem) in one operation is outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_machine

Your claim is tantamount to having built an Oracle machine.

Univalence wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 2:56 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 2:53 am Your last comment shows that you can't even tell the difference between 6 and 1.

There are 6 problems on that page. Each one is worth $1 million.

If you solve the halting problem, you can solve all 6.

I am sure you can multiply 6 by 1 without a calculator.

My solution simply proves that the execution trace that everyone thought made a solution impossible is not the actual execution trace. The alternate execution trace transitions to a correct halt / does not halt decision. That kind of an answer has nothing to do with P v NP.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 3:02 am The alternate execution trace transitions to a correct halt / does not halt decision.

If you solve the halting problem you have built an Oracle.

Forget P vs NP. You have conquered ALL complexity.

Univalence wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 3:03 am

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 3:02 am The alternate execution trace transitions to a correct halt / does not halt decision.

If you solve the halting problem you have built an Oracle.

Not at all I do it with a conventional TM. I merely noticed a key detail that no one ever noticed before. I used a system of categorically exhaustively complete reasoning that is able to totally eliminate gaps in reasoning.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2019 3:11 am Not at all I do it with a conventional TM. I merely noticed a key detail that no one ever noticed before. I used a system of categorically exhaustively complete reasoning that is able to totally eliminate gaps in reasoning.

I think I have tolerated you long enough. I am happy to categorise you as a troll now.

And on the infinitesimal probability that I am wrong and you are right - spend your $6 million wisely.