TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:25 am
But, you aren't asking me to write an argument. You are asking me to write a counter-argument. To YOUR claim.
And so I am happy to do that just as soon as you present YOUR argument (set of propositions) in lambda calculus.
You are still arguing in English?! You so much wanted to abandon English and all natural languages so as to write in the so called “high level languages,” thus:
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Nov 07, 2018 7:47 pm
English (and all natural languages) are broken - their Turing-completeness can't even be verified unless their grammar is formally defined. You don't get to insist on "proof" while also insisting that it be proven in a framework which lacks the grammar and semantics to express it. And since proofs are isomorphic to algorithms
English is the wrong tool for logic!
And now you are being given multiple opportunities to write in those "high level languages" exclusively and you just stick with English?!! I have even challenged you twice to write exclusively in the so-called “high level language,” as per you own wishes and yet you keep sticking with English! What’s the matter, you cannot do without English now?! Go on now, write exclusively in a language which is not a natural language.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:25 am
Ruby, Python, OCaml, Haskell, ML, Java, Kotlin, Scala, Rust, Go, C, C++, Perl or any other Turing-complete language.
It's all the same to me
That’s good, so now it should not be a problem for you to write exclusively in any of these languages as from now. This is what you wanted, you have that opportunity now.
__________________________
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:25 am
But, you aren't asking me to write an argument. You are asking me to write a counter-argument. To YOUR claim.
And so I am happy to do that just as soon as you present YOUR argument (set of propositions) in lambda calculus.
Let us recall that you made a statement such that there are thoughts which cannot be expressed in language. That was YOUR claim. I quote:
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:49 pm
And yet is precisely the thoughts which I can't express THROUGH any medium are the ones which you require evidence for...
How might one convince you that such thoughts exist?
Moreover, you further claimed that you can prove your claim easily in intuitionistic logic thus:
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:50 pm
The only way I know how to prove a negative is to abandon Aristotelian logic and embrace constructive/intuitionistic logic.
I did not force you to make those claims such that there are thoughts which allegedly cannot be expressed in language and that you can prove it in intuitionistic logic! So now, go on and prove your claim in intuitionistic logic. Don't break down on me again on this, and don't try to run away from YOUR OWN claims! Or are you giving up again?!
____________________________
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Fri Nov 16, 2018 6:25 am
You don't need to do that compilers/interpreters do a fine job at it.
As soon as you drop English (or any natural language) for the “high level languages”, which you claimed you could and which you are being challenged to do, then compilers and interpreters will be relevant to the discussion. But for now, you are STILL using English! Write exclusively in the “high level languages” as from now; yet again I am challenging you.