Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:23 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 2:55 am Yet logic cannot be reduced to a binary state given "maybe" is a third state representing a possible "yes/no" state.
But it can be reduced to a number of valid states. How many valid states does your logic-system have?
Yes, no, maybe (possibility), none of the above (no possibility), yes maybe, no maybe, maybe maybe, not yes maybe or no maybe, etc.

The states are boundless.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

DPMartin wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 12:49 am Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

1. All logic is dependent upon a series of selected assertions which are rooted within a sea of potentially selectable assertions. A computer cannot select which assertions to begin with.

2. All assertions are empty in themselves given they are dependent upon a progression to further assertions. This empty nature of the assertion is not programmable given the emptiness exists prior to computation. Computation is a byproduct of this empty nature but this emptiness is not programmable given emptiness is not programmable.

3. All assertions, as empty in themselves, are inherent middles to further assertions. This middle nature necessitates all assertions as center points to further assertions given the assertion leads to another assertion. Each assertion is a centerpoint and this nature of a centerpoint is not programmable.

4. Logic is thus rooted in a trifold nature: a chosen assertion, the emptiness of said assertion, and the assertion as a center point. This trifold nature to logic necessitates logic, at its roots, being unprogrammable.
if you mean garbage in garbage out, yes logic is only a garage in garbage out method or system if you like.

if this then that
if that then this, yada yada.

people control the outcome by controlling the input and call it infallible truth, and basically there're full of it.
True.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 9:05 pm
DPMartin wrote: Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:11 pm people control the outcome by controlling the input and call it infallible truth, and basically there're full of it.
If it's stupid and it works then it's not stupid...
But what defines what logic works and what does not without using logic? Logic is used to define logic thus necessitating a fundamental root to logic which exists beyond programmability.
Skepdick
Posts: 6908
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:42 am Still a paradox, as it necessitates an uncertainty about who/what/when/where/how/why exactly? Still uncertainty over what deduction is yet.
You are uncertain that deduction is NOT uncertain?
Skepdick
Posts: 6908
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:44 am Yes, no, maybe (possibility), none of the above (no possibility), yes maybe, no maybe, maybe maybe, not yes maybe or no maybe, etc.

The states are boundless.
So you are like Buridan's ass?
Skepdick
Posts: 6908
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Skepdick »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:46 am But what defines what logic works and what does not without using logic? Logic is used to define logic thus necessitating a fundamental root to logic which exists beyond programmability.
WHO defines logic?

The programmer.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4927
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by attofishpi »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:46 am But what defines what logic works and what does not without using logic? Logic is used to define logic thus necessitating a fundamental root to logic which exists beyond programmability.
WHO defines logic?

The programmer.
No they don't. Not now anyway, now that the OPERATORS used for the conditions of the logic have been set and agreed to.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4927
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by attofishpi »

Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:30 pm
attofishpi wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:12 pm So do we agree that logic at its fundamental root
It depends on how you conceptualise logic. If you are telling me that any inference from A -> B is logic, e.g f(A) = B then sure.
It's true, because f(), A and B could mean anything. It could even mean f(f) = f which would be equivalent of the English sentence I am I.
attofishpi wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:12 pm - although can be programmatically altered, defies the agreed logic that logicians AND mathematicians AND computer programmers etc..have deemed acceptable to human logic? - ..that once altered, the BINARY outcome is altered.
There's a ton of pre-suppositions in your questions. The outcome needs not be binary. It's only binary in Boolean logic. It's not Binary in non-Boolean logics.
OF course I understand that a function need not result in a boolean result - but the conditions (via the operators) within the function at are always at THE binary (boolean) level.

Skepdick wrote: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:30 pmProgrammers disagree with programmers about syntax AND semantics, but they do agree on one thing on which Logicians and Mathematicians disagree with. Programmers want side-effects (non-determinism), logicians and mathematicians don't (determinism) !

So, in a way - certainly. When you change something in the system something elsewhere is definitely altered. That's a feature not a bug.
Programmers don't usually want non-determinism. It depends on the final outcome desired for the entire program, algorithm, function - perhaps statistics are to be analysed - which would result in a non pre-determinable outcome, fine. A random result might be required, again not pre-determinable.

Not sure if this is a wind up of you playing devils advocate here.
Skepdick
Posts: 6908
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Skepdick »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:53 am No they don't. Not now anyway, now that the OPERATORS used for the conditions of the logic have been set and agreed to.
Set and agreed to by.... ?

The OPERATORS are subject to re-definition! BY the programmers. Operator theory
operators.png
operators.png (83.89 KiB) Viewed 93 times
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4927
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by attofishpi »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:03 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:53 am No they don't. Not now anyway, now that the OPERATORS used for the conditions of the logic have been set and agreed to.
Set and agreed to by.... ?

The OPERATORS are subject to re-definition! BY the programmers. Operator theory

operators.png
From what I can see there, and it certainly isn't any code I am familiar with, but the case of [2],[3]....[x] MAY result in a VIOLATION of the AGREED operation of the operator.

I have agreed that the LOGIC of the maths symbol or the operator symbol in programming can be changed (reprogrammed to function differently) - but this is a VIOLATION of the LOGIC -----> AT THE BINARY LEVEL!!!
Skepdick
Posts: 6908
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Skepdick »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am OF course I understand that a function need not result in a boolean result - but the conditions (via the operators) within the function at are always at THE binary (boolean) level.
No... you are just assuming Boolean logic as a low-level assembly language. That's just an artefact of the design of modern computers.

We could (in principle) design Ternary computers
attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am Programmers don't usually want non-determinism.
Programmers WANT determinism. But we don't have it!

There's entropy. It's precisely our job to tame it. That's what control-flow is about.

attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am It depends on the final outcome desired for the entire program, algorithm, function - perhaps statistics are to be analysed - which would result in a non pre-determinable outcome, fine. A random result might be required, again not pre-determinable.
Some time you need a deterministic algorithm for a final outcome.
Some times you need a non-deterministic algorithms for a final-outcome.
attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am Not sure if this is a wind up of you playing devils advocate here.
Not at all! The most basic definition of a non-deterministic function is one that returns a different results with the same inputs

So... I'll give you one such non-deterministic function.
non-deterministic-function.png
non-deterministic-function.png (19.78 KiB) Viewed 89 times
Skepdick
Posts: 6908
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Skepdick »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:09 am From what I can see there, and it certainly isn't any code I am familiar with, but the case of [2],[3]....[x] MAY result in a VIOLATION of the AGREED operation of the operator.
Violation of AGREED functionality is a moral/contractual violation, not a factual one!!!

The AND operator OUGHT TO function this way, but as a programmer I do not care how it OUGHT TO function. I NEED IT to function the way I've programmed it to function.

attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:09 am I have agreed that the LOGIC of the maths symbol or the operator symbol in programming can be changed (reprogrammed to function differently) - but this is a VIOLATION of the LOGIC -----> AT THE BINARY LEVEL!!!
There's no "binary level" in symbolic logic! There's just meaning.

What does Boolean AND ( ∧ ) mean ?

It means...

∧(1,1) -> 1
∧(1,0) -> 0
∧(0,1) -> 0
∧(0,0) -> 0

And I re-defined it to have a different (non-deterministic!) meaning:
operators.png
operators.png (83.89 KiB) Viewed 85 times
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 4927
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by attofishpi »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:10 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am OF course I understand that a function need not result in a boolean result - but the conditions (via the operators) within the function at are always at THE binary (boolean) level.
No... you are just assuming Boolean logic as a low-level assembly language. That's just an artefact of the design of modern computers.

We could (in principle) design Ternary computers
attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am Programmers don't usually want non-determinism.
Programmers WANT determinism. But we don't have it!
But you stated:- "Programmers want side-effects (non-determinism)"

You contradicted yourself, I guess that means we redefine the term contradiction now! (since you are such an ANARCHIST!!)


Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:10 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am It depends on the final outcome desired for the entire program, algorithm, function - perhaps statistics are to be analysed - which would result in a non pre-determinable outcome, fine. A random result might be required, again not pre-determinable.
Some time you need a deterministic algorithm for a final outcome.
Some times you need a non-deterministic algorithms for a final-outcome.
Of course!! No argument there dude.

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:10 am
attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am Not sure if this is a wind up of you playing devils advocate here.
Not at all! The most basic definition of a non-deterministic function is one that returns a different results with the same inputs

So... I'll give you one such non-deterministic function.

non-deterministic-function.png
Things can be returned from functions that are not determinable - with the same input - I stated just above that we can agree on that.

If you are not playing devils advocate here, then you ARE misunderstanding my point or just enjoying the ride on the wind up factor - watch atto get a tad upset soon.

So let's keep it simple - show me an example where a logical operator used in C ...can provide a non-predetermined result (without changing the way the operator functions)
Skepdick
Posts: 6908
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Skepdick »

attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:28 am But you stated:- "Programmers want side-effects (non-determinism)"

You contradicted yourself, I guess that means we redefine the term contradiction now! (since you are such an ANARCHIST!!)
Contradictions ARE side-effects! A contradiction is precisely the algorithm which causes P to become not-P!

It's a state mutation. A bit-flip. A change. And yeah, sure! Why can't we redefine it?
The AGREED-upon definition of the LNC is: P ∧ ¬P ⇔ False

I guess I'll change it.
lnc.png
lnc.png (11.25 KiB) Viewed 73 times
attofishpi wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:28 am So let's keep it simple - show me an example where a logical operator used in C ...can provide a non-predetermined result (without changing the way the operator functions)
First question: Why are you prescribing a compiled language (C) why can't I use an interpreted language (Ruby)?
2nd question: Why was my example of the Time.now function insufficient?

The result of Time.now is not pre-determined. It's determined EXACTLY at the time when the operator is called.

Finally, what is the pre-determined result of rand() ?

Code: Select all

➜  ~ cat rand.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>

int main () {
   srand(time(NULL));
   printf("%d\n", rand() % 1000000);
   return(0);
}
➜  ~ gcc rand.c -o rand
➜  ~ ./rand
988055
➜  ~ ./rand
21669
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6708
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Skepdick wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 7:57 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:42 am Still a paradox, as it necessitates an uncertainty about who/what/when/where/how/why exactly? Still uncertainty over what deduction is yet.
You are uncertain that deduction is NOT uncertain?
No, uncertain over what deduction is about. An uncertainty about who/what/when/where/how/why deduction is about is an uncertainty over deduction. Deduction is both certain and uncertain.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply