## Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Scott Mayers wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 9:32 pm Pete, you keep begging you have powerful proof of something but cannot competently express this to me.....someone who DOES have a lot of background on this and STILL can't understand you.
If you cannot imagine the subset of conventional proofs of mathematical logic having
true premises then your actual background is not nearly up to par.

If you can imagine this then of course my idea seem impossibly too simple to be correct
UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY TRACE IT THROUGH AND TEST IT.

It really is totally nuts that something as simple as the conventional notion
of sound deductive inference would totally eliminate incompleteness of formal systems,
none this less it remains an easily verifiable fact just the same.

I had to use categorically exhaustively complete reasoning to interpolate on a solution
that everyone else simply ignored. This found a correct solution that just happened
to be unbelievable.

SSL certificates have been traditionally only used for e-commerce sites so requiring
them of everyone only seemed to be a money making scam. In retrospect they
might also be used to hold the purveyors of computer viruses accountable.

grammarly.com
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 9:51 pm If you can imagine this then of course my idea seem impossibly too simple to be correct
UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY TRACE IT THROUGH AND TEST IT.

It really is totally nuts that something as simple as the conventional notion
of sound deductive inference would totally eliminate incompleteness of formal systems,
none this less it remains an easily verifiable fact just the same.
I have an idea.

Why don't you write your "proof" in a system that can demonstrate your claims and speak for itself, rather than you having to convince people?

Here's a comprehensive list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_assistant

This way, I can reciprocate counter-examples to your claims in code also, de facto demonstrating your errors in reasoning. An exploit if you like.
Last edited by Univalence on Wed May 15, 2019 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Univalence wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:23 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 9:51 pm If you can imagine this then of course my idea seem impossibly too simple to be correct
UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY TRACE IT THROUGH AND TEST IT.

It really is totally nuts that something as simple as the conventional notion
of sound deductive inference would totally eliminate incompleteness of formal systems,
none this less it remains an easily verifiable fact just the same.
I have an idea. Why don't you write your "proof" in a system that can demonstrate your claims and speak for itself, rather than you having to convince people?

Here's a comprehensive list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_assistant
You only have to understand a single simple paragraph of English words to understand that
I am correct, is that too much for you?

The notion of complete and consistent formal systems is exhaustively elaborated
as conventional formal proofs to theorem consequences where axioms are stipulated
to be finite strings with the semantic property of Boolean true.
// LHS := RHS the LHS is defined as an alias for the RHS
∀x True(x) := ⊢x
∀x False(x) := ⊢¬x
Because valid deduction from true premises necessarily derives a true consequence
we know that the above predicate pair consistently decides every deductively
sound argument.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:27 pm You only have to understand a single simple paragraph of English words to understand that
I am correct, is that too much for you?
Pete, surely you aren't looking for my validation all this time?

If that is what you are after have it: YOU ARE CORRECT

Now stop talking about it and show me a working piece of software which implements your idea.

A working piece of software which eliminates decision problems.
Last edited by Univalence on Wed May 15, 2019 10:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Univalence wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:29 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:27 pm You only have to understand a single simple paragraph of English words to understand that
I am correct, is that too much for you?
Pete, surely you aren't looking for my validation all this time?

If that is what you are after have it: YOU ARE CORRECT.

Now stop talking about it and show me.
I just did go back and study it again and again until
you see that the above simple paragraph fully
elaborates every relevant detail of a notion of
formal system that is complete and consistent.

I am looking for validation in the sense that my words are clear enough
to be agreed as correct and totally proving my point.

I want to do this so that when I present it to published PhDs in the
field that they too see that it is obviously correctly proves my point.
Then I will submit it for publication in an academic journal.
Last edited by PeteOlcott on Wed May 15, 2019 10:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:31 pm I just did go back and study it again and again until
you see that the above simple paragraph fully
elaborates every relevant detail of a notion of
formal system that is complete and consistent.

I demand empirical evidence. Because Quine is right, and because Curry-Howard-Lambek are right.

I want working software that does what you claim. Not some squiggles on a piece of paper.

Provide your proof in ANY language that is on this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent ... dent_types

And I will take up on the challenge to write an exploit for your "proof". An input that demonstrates that you are wrong.
Last edited by Univalence on Wed May 15, 2019 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Univalence wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:33 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:31 pm I just did go back and study it again and again until
you see that the above simple paragraph fully
elaborates every relevant detail of a notion of
formal system that is complete and consistent.

I demand empirical evidence. Because Quine is right, and because Curry-Howard-Lamber are right.

I want working software that does what you claim. Not some squiggles on a piece of paper.
I just gave you complete proof, yet you are the guy that has a religion that says 1=0.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:35 pm I just gave you complete proof, yet you are the guy that has a religion that says 1=0.
That is not a proof, Pete.

Proofs compute.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Univalence wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:36 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:35 pm I just gave you complete proof, yet you are the guy that has a religion that says 1=0.
That is not a proof, Pete.

Proofs compute.
So I guess you will have to wait for my fully executable solution to the halting problem.
That proof does compute yet for a guy the truly believes that 1=0, nothing can be said
that would be convincing because rationality is derailed.
Last edited by PeteOlcott on Wed May 15, 2019 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:38 pm So I guess you will have to wait for my fully executable solution to the halting problem.
Very much so.

When do you plan on delivering?
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Univalence wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:39 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:38 pm So I guess you will have to wait for my fully executable solution to the halting problem.
Very much so.

When do you plan on delivering?
I only have to encode the UTM interpreter the TMs are already fully written.
I had to act as a lawyer on several court cases that still have tight time limits.
I refrain from doing the coding because I would screw up the court cases.

You really sincerely don't see how the sound deductive inference model eliminates
incompleteness? To me that would be like a guy that is getting slapped in the face
does not believe in slapping, faces or hands that slap.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:38 pm That proof does compute yet for a guy the truly believes that 1=0, nothing can be said
that would be convincing because rationality is derailed.
How many logical fallacies is that in one go, Pete?

Strawman.
Appeal to rationality.

I have told you what you need to do to convince me. Please don't play dumb.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:43 pm I only have to encode the UTM interpreter the TMs are already fully written.
I had to act as a lawyer on several court cases that still have tight time limits.
I refrain from doing the coding because I would screw up the court cases.

You really sincerely don't see how the sound deductive inference model eliminates
incompleteness? To me that would be like a guy that is getting slapped in the face
does not believe in slapping, faces or hands that slap.
I have been working at Google for 15 years and understand the computational problem space better than you understand how to masturbate.

What I see is that you are too invested in this to see your own error.

That is why I insist that you produce a proof of concept.
Last edited by Univalence on Wed May 15, 2019 10:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PeteOlcott
Posts: 970
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

Univalence wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:47 pm
PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:38 pm That proof does compute yet for a guy the truly believes that 1=0, nothing can be said
that would be convincing because rationality is derailed.
How many logical fallacies is that in one go, Pete?

Strawman.
Appeal to rationality.

I have told you what you need to do to convince me. Please don't play dumb.
Like I said you are like a guy being slapped in the face that does not believe in faces or slapping
A
A → B
-------
∴ B

I won't believe it until you write a Prolog interpreter that does higher order logic.
Univalence
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun May 12, 2019 6:28 pm

### Re: Does anyone here actually understand formal proofs of mathematical logic?

PeteOlcott wrote: Wed May 15, 2019 10:51 pm Like I said you are like a guy being slapped in the face that does not believe in faces or slapping
A
A → B
-------
∴ B

I won't believe it until you write a Prolog interpreter that does higher order logic.
You are going to have to define all your terms.

I am most interested in the semantics/implementation of →

I will settle for code in Coq, Agda or Idris.