Page **5** of **23**

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:39 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:28 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:07 pm
Great but you have not boiled that down to its minimal complexity.

Unless you can provide a complete concrete example of Girard's paradox

in a single simple English sentence it is not simple enough to be correctly

evaluated.

As always - show me your evaluator and I will break it for you.

So you cannot meet the challenge.

All of the evaluators ONLY evaluate previously stipulated relations between finite strings.

finite_string_X [stipulated_relation_Y] finite_string_X

"cats" [are_a_type_of] "animal"

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:43 pm**

by **Skepdick**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:39 pm
So you cannot meet the challenge.

Translation: Do my homework.

Since meeting your challenge will require at least a few hours of my undivided attention, I will happily meet it if you pay my regular hourly rate. Where can I send you an invoice?

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:39 pm
All of the evaluators ONLY evaluate previously stipulated relations between finite strings.

finite_string_X [stipulated_relation_Y] finite_string_X

"cats" [are_a_type_of] "animal"

I am dying with anticipation on how you are going to any type-checking whatsoever with a statically-typed language (like C++) when all you are accepting as input is finite strings. No marshalling of ANY sort?

How do you tell the difference between the number 3 and the string 3?

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:59 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:43 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:39 pm
So you cannot meet the challenge.

Translation: Do my homework.

Since meeting your challenge will require at least a few hours of my undivided attention, I will happily meet it if you pay my regular hourly rate. Where can I send you an invoice?

I took me many years to fully realize that the actual essence of the incompleteness theorem

sentence really is: "this sentence is unprovable". It took me several more years to realize

that this sentence is best rejected on the basis of its self-contradictory nature.

I just very recently discovered that all formal systems inherit from their base class

of stipulated relations between finite strings.

That your cannot boil Girard's paradox down into a concrete example of a single

simple English sentence is most likely (as in the 1931 Incompleteness Theorem)

evidence that no one ever has done anything like this because no one has ever

began to understand its basis essence.

**In other words I take your answer as simply dodging the question.**

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:01 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:43 pm
I am dying with anticipation on how you are going to any type-checking whatsoever with a statically-typed language (like C++) when all you are accepting as input is finite strings. No marshalling of ANY sort?

C++ is for all practical purposes Turing Complete.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:03 pm**

by **Eodnhoj7**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:25 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:03 am
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:30 am
Try and make a very simple concrete example of this.

Yes, basic counting. Anything can be quantified, thus we may observe how a phenomenon exists in time and space, but we never really know its qualities.

The reverse works for qualifying a phenomenon into categories. I may qualify a rose but it does not take into account all the other types of flowers. Or I may qualifies flowers, but it does not take into account other organisms. The same applies for organisms and minerals etc.

Thus we are left with a paradox in the act of measurement and if any unity or synthesis is to be observed we have to look at common denominators.

**That is not really paradoxical at all. **
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

1. Precision, through analysis, necessitates ambiguity elsewhere hence is self defeating.

2. Continual analysis, through the breaking down of axioms, results in complexity through multiple axioms.

3. Precision leads to both ambiguity of extraneous axioms (axioms that are not localizied) and the multiplicity of axioms it produces.

Precision, as a premise, cancels itself out...this is a paradox.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:04 pm**

by **Eodnhoj7**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 5:50 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:09 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:33 am
**I would estimate that you are using the term paradox incorrectly.**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

False, it is correct.

In quantifying a phenomenon, the quantifier can mean an infinite number of things. However the quantifer only exists if something can be counted. This requires a quality. Thus in becoming more precise in a quantity, we become less precise in a quality. In counting oranges we lose detail about the qualities of the orange.

The reverse occurs.

In becoming defined in one thing, you become undefined in another. Increasing analysis results in increasing obscurity.

Does at least one existence exist?

Does justice ever exist? How many "justice" exist?

How many ways can one be applied before it is no longer one?

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:11 pm**

by **Skepdick**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:01 pm
C++ is for all practical purposes Turing Complete.

It is. But it doesn't have dynamic types.

Which means you have to know everything about the data you are going to be processing at compile time.

Metaprogramming? Forget it.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:13 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:03 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
A paradox is a statement that, despite apparently valid reasoning from true premises, leads to an apparently-self-contradictory or logically unacceptable conclusion.

1. Precision, through analysis, necessitates ambiguity elsewhere hence is self defeating.

Precision, as a premise, cancels itself out...this is a paradox.

[/quote]

My pet cat Tabby is sitting on my lap and an animal is sitting on my lap simply express

the natural inheritance hierarchy order of the set of all knowledge.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:15 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:11 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:01 pm
C++ is for all practical purposes Turing Complete.

It is. But it doesn't have dynamic types.

Metaprogramming? Forget it.

So you don't understand that Turing complete means that every programming language can be created in C++.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:18 pm**

by **Skepdick**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:59 pm
I took me many years to fully realize that the actual essence of the incompleteness theorem

sentence really is: "this sentence is unprovable".

The essence of the incompleteness theorem is self-knowledge.

What is the cardinality of my knowledge-base?

The moment you ask (and answer) that question, the answer changes.

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:59 pm
**In other words I take your answer as simply dodging the question.**

Cool. Good luck. Have fun.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:20 pm**

by **Skepdick**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:15 pm
So you don't understand that Turing complete means that every programming language can be created in C++.

I literally explained this to you 3 posts ago.

The difference is between CAN be implemented and HAS been implemented.

C++ does not have dynamic typing. It CAN have dynamic typing. But it doesn't.

C++ is a statically typed language.

Brainfuck is also Turing-complete. It has a rather poor vocabulary if you ask me.

The fact that you speak only one language (C++) is your problem. You are unfamiliar with any other paradigm.

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

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:37 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:20 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:15 pm
So you don't understand that Turing complete means that every programming language can be created in C++.

I literally explained this to you 3 posts ago.

The difference is between CAN be implemented and HAS been implemented.

C++ does not have dynamic typing. It CAN have dynamic typing. But it doesn't.

C++ is a statically typed language.

Brainfuck is also Turing-complete. It has a rather poor vocabulary if you ask me.

The fact that you speak only one language (C++) is your problem. You are unfamiliar with any other paradigm.

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

Forget that I ever said anything about C++. Assume that I am using a Turing machine.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:43 pm**

by **PeteOlcott**

Skepdick wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:18 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 8:59 pm
I took me many years to fully realize that the actual essence of the incompleteness theorem

sentence really is: "this sentence is unprovable".

The essence of the incompleteness theorem is self-knowledge.

What is the cardinality of my knowledge-base?

The moment you ask (and answer) that question, the answer changes.

The knowledge base is always finite. The sum total of all human general knowledge

at any point in time is always finite. The sum total of all human knowledge within

any discourse context is always finite.

I just answered the question and the answer did not change.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:44 pm**

by **Skepdick**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:37 pm
Forget that I ever said anything about C++. Assume that I am using a Turing machine.

ROFL. You really like re-inventing wheels.

### Re: Truth can be understood as math

Posted: **Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:47 pm**

by **Skepdick**

PeteOlcott wrote: ↑Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:43 pm
The knowledge base is always finite. The sum total of all human general knowledge

at any point in time is always finite. The sum total of all human knowledge within

any discourse context is always finite.

I just answered the question and the answer did not change.

You didn't answer the question. Finite does not mean constant!

The question is like so: How many provable/true statements are there in the Human knowledge-base?

In order to answer the question you might do something like "

**SELECT COUNT(*) FROM knowledge_base;**", and it will give you some finite number. Say 77777.

So then, is this English sentence true or false? There are 77777 facts in the human knowledge base.