Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

[attofishpi]

It's what happens between the input and the output that IS the logic.
....
The 'A's and the 'B' s are data - it's the function that is the LOGIC.

So what happens between the input and the output of select_random(A) -> B ?

Give me the logic of random selection.

Sounds like fun. Some seed apparently is required and I think CPU timing - dunno.

The point that you appear to be missing (i think) is that we are talking about the CORE fundamental state of logic, which I am insisting is binary - anything beyond that is algorithm, including a random number (whatever) generator (a bunch of binary logic resulting in an output).

Certainly - as I have admitted plenty of times on this forum - I ain't had loads of educ - learnin on the fly so to speak - so I accept I could be TOTALLY WRONG!!

[Skepdick]

Sounds like fun. Some seed apparently is required and I think CPU timing - dunno.

The point that you appear to be missing (i think) is that we are talking about the CORE fundamental state of logic, which I am insisting is binary - anything beyond that is algorithm, including a random number (whatever) generator (a bunch of binary logic resulting in an output).

Certainly - as I have admitted plenty of times on this forum - I ain't had loads of educ - learnin on the fly so to speak - so I accept I could be TOTALLY WRONG!!

The point is that you are drawing a distinction between logic (code?) and data...

Code is data and data is code.

[attofishpi]

Sounds like fun. Some seed apparently is required and I think CPU timing - dunno.

The point that you appear to be missing (i think) is that we are talking about the CORE fundamental state of logic, which I am insisting is binary - anything beyond that is algorithm, including a random number (whatever) generator (a bunch of binary logic resulting in an output).

Certainly - as I have admitted plenty of times on this forum - I ain't had loads of educ - learnin on the fly so to speak - so I accept I could be TOTALLY WRONG!!

The point is that you are drawing a distinction between logic (code?) and data...

Code is data and data is code.

Absolutely I am:-

operators are the logic, such as the symbols in maths:-
- + (add) - (subtract) / (divide) (square) etc etc.. (math logic)
They cannot be "programmed" changed (without violating what mathematicians have denoted them to 'do' logically)

Computer programming:- ++ != == etc...same point.

If none of the above operators\symbols DO what they are supposed to do - then the result is binary (FALSE)

[Skepdick]

Absolutely I am:-

operators are the logic, such as the symbols in maths:-
- + (add) - (subtract) / (divide) (square) etc etc.. (math logic)
They cannot be "programmed" changed (without violating what mathematicians have denoted them to 'do' logically)

Those are just social norms.

Symbolically you can change them. And when you do change them - they no longer denote what Mathematicians have denoted them to mean. They now denote something else.

You are using a different denotation.

In my denotation 6+4 = 2

Computer programming:- ++ != == etc...same point.

If none of the above operators\symbols DO what they are supposed to do - then the result is binary (FALSE)

What an operator is SUPPOSED to do is a moral prescription. What they ACTUALLY do is a factual description.
What any given operator results in depends entirely on the programmer's will.

The good ol' is-ought gap.

[DPMartin]

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.

[Skepdick]

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...

[attofishpi]

Absolutely I am:-

operators are the logic, such as the symbols in maths:-
- + (add) - (subtract) / (divide) (square) etc etc.. (math logic)
They cannot be "programmed" changed (without violating what mathematicians have denoted them to 'do' logically)

Those are just social norms.

Symbolically you can change them. And when you do change them - they no longer denote what Mathematicians have denoted them to mean. They now denote something else.

You are using a different denotation.

In my denotation 6+4 = 2

Social norms!? Logical operators are essential to any logical result where we expect to receive a ANY amount of logic.

Changing these symbols, conditions, operators - is only going to provide you with ILLOGIC - a result which will be binarily FALSE, confirming what I am stating, that at as per OP we are talking about the fundamental core of logic - it IS binary, and unchangeable - sure - change all the functionality of the operators\mathematical symbols - provide the same data input and see whether the output remains identical.

Computer programming:- ++ != == etc...same point.

If none of the above operators\symbols DO what they are supposed to do - then the result is binary (FALSE)

What an operator is SUPPOSED to do is a moral prescription. What they ACTUALLY do is a factual description.
What any given operator results in depends entirely on the programmer's will.

The good ol' is-ought gap.

A LOGICAL operator that humans have defined to deal with logic is 'morally prescriptive'!?

A programmer, that changes any of the ways that the LOGICAL OPERATOR (whether mathematics - makes a + plus act like a divide / -- or != to act as > etc..) is changing the agreed condition that humans have defined as logic - ok, morally 'bad' - binarily, as I keep insisting - providing a binarily FALSE rather than TRUE outcome. (illogic)

[Skepdick]

Social norms!? Logical operators are essential to any logical result where we expect to receive a ANY amount of logic.

Changing these symbols, conditions, operators - is only going to provide you with ILLOGIC - a result which will be binarily FALSE, confirming what I am stating, that at as per OP we are talking about the fundamental core of logic - it IS binary, and unchangeable - sure - change all the functionality of the operators\mathematical symbols - provide the same data input and see whether the output remains identical.

If the illogical is as useful as the logical - I'll take both.

A LOGICAL operator that humans have defined to deal with logic is 'morally prescriptive'!?

Yes. It's a rule that you are told to; or choose to obey. You don't have to...

A programmer, that changes any of the ways that the LOGICAL OPERATOR (whether mathematics - makes a + plus act like a divide / -- or != to act as > etc..) is changing the agreed condition that humans have defined as logic - ok, morally 'bad' - binarily, as I keep insisting - providing a binarily FALSE rather than TRUE outcome. (illogic)

Yes. Logicians obey logical rules. Programmers make logical rules.

If you want to obey rules, I'll give you some.

Locus solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules

[attofishpi]

If you want to obey rules, I'll give you some.

Locus solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules

Well, at least now I know Y people go to UNI - so that they can take the piss out of each other sygmonically.

[DPMartin]

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...

thinking one's self to be smart enough to deceive others is what? and one doesn't have to be stupid to be full of it, do they?

[Skepdick]

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...

thinking one's self to be smart enough to deceive others is what? and one doesn't have to be stupid to be full of it, do they?

You arrived at this comment from what I said how?

All human "knowledge" is basically a bunch of heuristics. Scientific models included.

[attofishpi]

Social norms!? Logical operators are essential to any logical result where we expect to receive a ANY amount of logic.

Changing these symbols, conditions, operators - is only going to provide you with ILLOGIC - a result which will be binarily FALSE, confirming what I am stating, that at as per OP we are talking about the fundamental core of logic - it IS binary, and unchangeable - sure - change all the functionality of the operators\mathematical symbols - provide the same data input and see whether the output remains identical.

If the illogical is as useful as the logical - I'll take both.

A LOGICAL operator that humans have defined to deal with logic is 'morally prescriptive'!?

Yes. It's a rule that you are told to; or choose to obey. You don't have to...

A programmer, that changes any of the ways that the LOGICAL OPERATOR (whether mathematics - makes a + plus act like a divide / -- or != to act as > etc..) is changing the agreed condition that humans have defined as logic - ok, morally 'bad' - binarily, as I keep insisting - providing a binarily FALSE rather than TRUE outcome. (illogic)

Yes. Logicians obey logical rules. Programmers make logical rules.

If you want to obey rules, I'll give you some.

Locus solum: From the rules of logic to the logic of rules

So do we agree that logic at its fundamental root - 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.

Stand at my Lord's ALTAR right now, drink HIS blood, eat HIS flesh. ...DNA (AND under_stand. LOGIC is binary.)

U R bound by IT __ ELSE = AN_ARCH_Y = u removed the KEY_STONE. (the only answer to that jailbreak of the system Hotz was on about)

[Skepdick]

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.

- 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.

In as much as anybody has agreed to anything: Classical logicians have agreed with classical logicians, but intuitionistic logicians disagree with classical logicians.

Classical mathematicians disagree with constructive mathemaitcians (particularly about proofs by contradiction).

Programmers 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.

In general what most logicians, mathematicians etc have in common is that they accept the "law" of non-contradiction. Which is usually known as the "no-self-defeating objects" argument ( https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2009/11/ ... -argument/ ). e.g Any system that can express a contradiction "defeats it self".

Sooo, uuuh. To that argument I say. I don't exist. And - I did not defeat myself in saying this.

[attofishpi]

Oi. Will address the above 1AM here and gonna cook up some late dinner - but when R we gonna have a game of around the planet VR table tennis? I am in Oz and played with dudes in UK - very playable and hilarious.

The ping and the pong are differential. The ping is good for the ball, the hilarious thing is the bat of the opponent dunt quite match where you see the bat - so you think - you have won the point, cos the player(bat) is too far away for the great shot u just returned - but fk me - the ball comes back. They programmed it well - focusing on the transfer of the ball data over the secondary consideration - the bat and the headset of the opponent data being transferred.

U in US, the ping will be better than that between me n UK (and I know how much u guys pong )

Could be fun to have a game -(and chat via the game) u can even put spin on the ball - so realistic - i bought it cos pretty much ALL reviews in steam were thumbs up.

Eleven Table tennis VR. We can chat about bollox as we play and hang up e z p z. PM is u is up for a game n chat.

Gotta finish off my early AM dinner.

Will reply to your post tomorrow. (if acceptable - other-wise - talk to the aether sage that has been watching you since inception - he/she might convince me to chow down quick and reply!)

[Eodnhoj7]

You are deducing deduction by defining it by what it is not. Yet paradoxically you are not giving clear definition as to what deduction is thus leaving it as uncertain.

I am not. I am reporting how other people define deduction and what constraints/limits they place upon that which they think deduction is.

Deduction is defined as NOT being uncertain.

Therefore If I am leaving "deduction" uncertain then it cannot be deduction. Because deduction is NOT uncertain.

Still a paradox, as it necessitates an uncertainty about who/what/when/where/how/why exactly? Still uncertainty over what deduction is yet.