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.
Yes, no, maybe (possibility), none of the above (no possibility), yes maybe, no maybe, maybe maybe, not yes maybe or no maybe, etc.
True.DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Feb 17, 2021 8:11 pmif you mean garbage in garbage out, yes logic is only a garage in garbage out method or system if you like.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 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.
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.
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 pmIt 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.
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.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.
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.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.
Set and agreed to by.... ?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.
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.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:03 amSet and agreed to by.... ?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.
The OPERATORS are subject to re-definition! BY the programmers. Operator theory
operators.png
No... you are just assuming Boolean logic as a low-level assembly language. That's just an artefact of the design of modern computers.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.
Programmers WANT determinism. But we don't have it!
Some time you need a deterministic algorithm for a final outcome.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.
Not at all! The most basic definition of a non-deterministic function is one that returns a different results with the same inputsattofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am Not sure if this is a wind up of you playing devils advocate here.
Violation of AGREED functionality is a moral/contractual violation, not a factual one!!!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.
There's no "binary level" in symbolic logic! There's just meaning.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!!!
But you stated:- "Programmers want side-effects (non-determinism)"Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:10 amNo... you are just assuming Boolean logic as a low-level assembly language. That's just an artefact of the design of modern computers.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.
We could (in principle) design Ternary computers
Programmers WANT determinism. But we don't have it!
Of course!! No argument there dude.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:10 amSome time you need a deterministic algorithm for a final outcome.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 times you need a non-deterministic algorithms for a final-outcome.
Things can be returned from functions that are not determinable - with the same input - I stated just above that we can agree on that.Skepdick wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:10 amNot at all! The most basic definition of a non-deterministic function is one that returns a different results with the same inputsattofishpi wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:02 am Not sure if this is a wind up of you playing devils advocate here.
So... I'll give you one such non-deterministic function.
non-deterministic-function.png
Contradictions ARE side-effects! A contradiction is precisely the algorithm which causes P to become not-P!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!!)
First question: Why are you prescribing a compiled language (C) why can't I use an interpreted language (Ruby)?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)
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
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.