Is logic at its root fundamentally programmable?

[Eodnhoj7]

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.

[Eodnhoj7]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[attofishpi]

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.

[attofishpi]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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 (83.89 KiB) Viewed 1897 times

[attofishpi]

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]

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

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.

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.

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 (19.78 KiB) Viewed 1893 times

[Skepdick]

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.

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 (83.89 KiB) Viewed 1889 times

[attofishpi]

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

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!!)

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.

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]

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 (11.25 KiB) Viewed 1877 times

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]

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.