Page **6** of **9**

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 9:51 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 9:32 pm
Pete, you keep begging you have powerful proof of something but cannot competently express this to me.....someone who DOES have a lot of background on this and STILL can't understand you.

If you cannot imagine the subset of conventional proofs of mathematical logic having

true premises then your actual background is not nearly up to par.

If you can imagine this then of course my idea seem impossibly too simple to be correct

UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY TRACE IT THROUGH AND TEST IT.

It really is totally nuts that something as simple as the conventional notion

of sound deductive inference would totally eliminate incompleteness of formal systems,

**none this less it remains an easily verifiable fact just the same.**
I had to use categorically exhaustively complete reasoning to interpolate on a solution

that everyone else simply ignored. This found a correct solution that just happened

to be unbelievable.

SSL certificates have been traditionally only used for e-commerce sites so requiring

them of everyone only seemed to be a money making scam. In retrospect they

might also be used to hold the purveyors of computer viruses accountable.

Grammarly is an SSL site that is spreading viruses that try to steal your banking password.

grammarly.com

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:23 pm**

by **Univalence**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 9:51 pm
If you can imagine this then of course my idea seem impossibly too simple to be correct

UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY TRACE IT THROUGH AND TEST IT.

It really is totally nuts that something as simple as the conventional notion

of sound deductive inference would totally eliminate incompleteness of formal systems,

**none this less it remains an easily verifiable fact just the same.**

I have an idea.

Why don't you write your "proof" in a system that can demonstrate your claims and speak for itself, rather than you having to convince people?

Here's a comprehensive list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_assistant
This way, I can reciprocate counter-examples to your claims in code also, de facto demonstrating your errors in reasoning. An

exploit if you like.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:27 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Univalence wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:23 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 9:51 pm
If you can imagine this then of course my idea seem impossibly too simple to be correct

UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY TRACE IT THROUGH AND TEST IT.

It really is totally nuts that something as simple as the conventional notion

of sound deductive inference would totally eliminate incompleteness of formal systems,

**none this less it remains an easily verifiable fact just the same.**

I have an idea. Why don't you write your "proof" in a system that can demonstrate your claims and speak for itself, rather than you having to convince people?

Here's a comprehensive list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_assistant

You only have to understand a single simple paragraph of English words to understand that

I am correct, is that too much for you?

The notion of complete and consistent formal systems is exhaustively elaborated

as conventional formal proofs to theorem consequences where axioms are stipulated

to be finite strings with the semantic property of Boolean true.

// LHS := RHS the LHS is defined as an alias for the RHS

∀x True(x) := ⊢x

∀x False(x) := ⊢¬x

Because valid deduction from true premises necessarily derives a true consequence

we know that the above predicate pair consistently decides every deductively

sound argument.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:29 pm**

by **Univalence**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:27 pm
You only have to understand a single simple paragraph of English words to understand that

I am correct, is that too much for you?

Pete, surely you aren't looking for my validation all this time?

If that is what you are after have it: YOU ARE CORRECT

Now stop talking about it and show me a working piece of software which implements your idea.

A working piece of software which eliminates decision problems.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:31 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Univalence wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:29 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:27 pm
You only have to understand a single simple paragraph of English words to understand that

I am correct, is that too much for you?

Pete, surely you aren't looking for my validation all this time?

If that is what you are after have it: YOU ARE CORRECT.

Now stop talking about it and show me.

I just did go back and study it again and again until

you see that the above simple paragraph fully

elaborates every relevant detail of a notion of

formal system that is complete and consistent.

I am looking for validation in the sense that my words are clear enough

to be agreed as correct and totally proving my point.

I want to do this so that when I present it to published PhDs in the

field that they too see that it is obviously correctly proves my point.

Then I will submit it for publication in an academic journal.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:33 pm**

by **Univalence**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:31 pm
I just did go back and study it again and again until

you see that the above simple paragraph fully

elaborates every relevant detail of a notion of

formal system that is complete and consistent.

No. Fuck your English claims.

I demand empirical evidence. Because Quine is right, and because Curry-Howard-Lambek are right.

I want working software that does what you claim. Not some squiggles on a piece of paper.

Provide your proof in ANY language that is on this list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent ... dent_types
And I will take up on the challenge to write an exploit for your "proof". An input that demonstrates that you are wrong.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:35 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Univalence wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:33 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:31 pm
I just did go back and study it again and again until

you see that the above simple paragraph fully

elaborates every relevant detail of a notion of

formal system that is complete and consistent.

No. Fuck your English claims.

I demand empirical evidence. Because Quine is right, and because Curry-Howard-Lamber are right.

I want working software that does what you claim. Not some squiggles on a piece of paper.

I just gave you complete proof, yet you are the guy that has a religion that says 1=0.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:36 pm**

by **Univalence**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:35 pm
I just gave you complete proof, yet you are the guy that has a religion that says 1=0.

That is not a proof, Pete.

Proofs compute.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:38 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Univalence wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:36 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:35 pm
I just gave you complete proof, yet you are the guy that has a religion that says 1=0.

That is not a proof, Pete.

Proofs compute.

So I guess you will have to wait for my fully executable solution to the halting problem.

That proof does compute yet for a guy the truly believes that 1=0, nothing can be said

that would be convincing because rationality is derailed.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:39 pm**

by **Univalence**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:38 pm
So I guess you will have to wait for my fully executable solution to the halting problem.

Very much so.

When do you plan on delivering?

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:43 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Univalence wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:39 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:38 pm
So I guess you will have to wait for my fully executable solution to the halting problem.

Very much so.

When do you plan on delivering?

I only have to encode the UTM interpreter the TMs are already fully written.

I had to act as a lawyer on several court cases that still have tight time limits.

I refrain from doing the coding because I would screw up the court cases.

You really sincerely don't see how the sound deductive inference model eliminates

incompleteness? To me that would be like a guy that is getting slapped in the face

does not believe in slapping, faces or hands that slap.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:47 pm**

by **Univalence**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:38 pm
That proof does compute yet for a guy the truly believes that 1=0, nothing can be said

that would be convincing because rationality is derailed.

How many logical fallacies is that in one go, Pete?

Strawman.

Ad hominem.

Appeal to rationality.

I have told you what you need to do to convince me. Please don't play dumb.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:48 pm**

by **Univalence**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:43 pm
I only have to encode the UTM interpreter the TMs are already fully written.

I had to act as a lawyer on several court cases that still have tight time limits.

I refrain from doing the coding because I would screw up the court cases.

You really sincerely don't see how the sound deductive inference model eliminates

incompleteness? To me that would be like a guy that is getting slapped in the face

does not believe in slapping, faces or hands that slap.

I have been working at Google for 15 years and understand the computational problem space better than you understand how to masturbate.

What I see is that you are too invested in this to see your own error.

That is why I insist that you produce a proof of concept.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:51 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Univalence wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:47 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:38 pm
That proof does compute yet for a guy the truly believes that 1=0, nothing can be said

that would be convincing because rationality is derailed.

How many logical fallacies is that in one go, Pete?

Strawman.

Ad hominem.

Appeal to rationality.

I have told you what you need to do to convince me. Please don't play dumb.

Like I said you are like a guy being slapped in the face that does not believe in faces or slapping

A

A → B

-------

∴ B

I won't believe it until you write a Prolog interpreter that does higher order logic.

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Posted: **Wed May 15, 2019 10:51 pm**

by **Univalence**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2019 10:51 pm
Like I said you are like a guy being slapped in the face that does not believe in faces or slapping

A

A → B

-------

∴ B

I won't believe it until you write a Prolog interpreter that does higher order logic.

You are going to have to define all your terms.

I am most interested in the semantics/implementation of →

I will settle for code in Coq, Agda or Idris.