Correcting the definition of VALID inference

[Skepdick]

So in other words you are fine if someone short changes you in a transaction
costing you thousands of dollars even though arithmetic shows that they are
wrong they are entitled to their own opinion regarding these math errors that
cheated you?

So in other words you are an idiot. Is arithmetic consistent? Prove it.

Do you feel cheated when you have to decide on rounding errors?
Do you think it's fair to round up or round down?
Do you feel cheated when the bank calculates interest accrual once a month, instead of once every second?

If it costs me a thousands dollars on a billion dollar transaction, I wouldn't even blink an eye.

Truth is much too complicated to allow for anything but approximations --A very smart guy

Show me a man who insists on precision and I will show you a very imprecise man --Maybe me, maybe somebody else

[PeteOlcott]

Truth is much too complicated to allow for anything but approximations --A very smart guy

The lack of truth allows the possibility of "alternative facts" (AKA damn lies) that
can destroy the world with counter-factual disinformation on climate change.

A consistent and correct formalized notion of truth would allow automated
systems to find and disclose all of the damn lies of counter-factual disinformation.

Even before the formal systems are developed a formalized notion of truth will
provide the mathematical basis for dividing actual truth from biased opinions.

[Skepdick]

The lack of truth allows the possibility of "alternative facts" (AKA damn lies) that
can destroy the world with counter-factual disinformation on climate change.

A consistent and correct formalized notion of truth would allow automated
systems to find and disclose all of the damn lies of counter-factual disinformation.

Even before the formal systems are developed a formalized notion of truth will
provide the mathematical basis for dividing actual truth from biased opinions.

Your root-cause analysis is flawed.

How are you going to convince the humans to accept your formal definition?
How are you going to stop the humans from ignoring the answers your automated systems gives them?
How are you going to prove that your machine isn't lying?
How would you know if it is lying? Like this algorithm.

Typical engineer. Misses the forrest for the trees.

[Eodnhoj7]

You did that incorrectly. It was very hard to read the red because I have a blue blocker.
(1) Create a Reductio ad absurdum proof proving that P is false on the basis of a contradiction.
(2) Plug this contradiction into the principle of explosion and derive P.
Now you have just proven that Reductio ad absurdum can be overruled so it does not work.

POE and RAA contradict each other forming an inconsistent system.

If it is that hard to read, then maybe you read it wrong.

My BLUE BLOCKER makes red almost the same color as the background color.
Please quit using RED !

Then reread the post....

[PeteOlcott]

If it is that hard to read, then maybe you read it wrong.

My BLUE BLOCKER makes red almost the same color as the background color.
Please quit using RED !

Then reread the post....

It contained nothing of value.
My point was RAA proves falsity on the basis of deriving a contradiction.
Using this same contradiction from RAA as the premises to POE proves the same proposition that BOE just prove false.
This proves that POE makes mathematical logic is inconsistent.

[Eodnhoj7]

My BLUE BLOCKER makes red almost the same color as the background color.
Please quit using RED !

Then reread the post....

It contained nothing of value.
My point was RAA proves falsity on the basis of deriving a contradiction.
Using this same contradiction from RAA as the premises to POE proves the same proposition that BOE just prove false.
This proves that POE makes mathematical logic is inconsistent.

If you negate a negative, using a negative, you are just repeating the principle of explosion.

The principle of explosion, if negated needs a thetical principle.

Mathematical logic is inconsistent, all logic is inconsistent. Language is inconsistent.

Inconsistency is inconsistent.

[PeteOlcott]

Then reread the post....

It contained nothing of value.
My point was RAA proves falsity on the basis of deriving a contradiction.
Using this same contradiction from RAA as the premises to POE proves the same proposition that BOE just prove false.
This proves that POE makes mathematical logic is inconsistent.

If you negate a negative, using a negative, you are just repeating the principle of explosion.

The principle of explosion, if negated needs a thetical principle.

Mathematical logic is inconsistent, all logic is inconsistent. Language is inconsistent.

Inconsistency is inconsistent.

So it makes sense to you that someone would intentionally force Mathematical logic to be
inconsistent by appending the Principle of Explosion to the set of rules-of-inference?

[Eodnhoj7]

It contained nothing of value.
My point was RAA proves falsity on the basis of deriving a contradiction.
Using this same contradiction from RAA as the premises to POE proves the same proposition that BOE just prove false.
This proves that POE makes mathematical logic is inconsistent.

If you negate a negative, using a negative, you are just repeating the principle of explosion.

The principle of explosion, if negated needs a thetical principle.

Mathematical logic is inconsistent, all logic is inconsistent. Language is inconsistent.

Inconsistency is inconsistent.

So it makes sense to you that someone would intentionally force Mathematical logic to be
inconsistent by appending the Principle of Explosion to the set of rules-of-inference?

It makes sense consitency is an agreed upon interpretation and set of assumption that are subject to infinite regress....

[Skepdick]

So it makes sense to you that someone would intentionally force Mathematical logic to be
inconsistent by appending the Principle of Explosion to the set of rules-of-inference?

Have you ever worked with any large-scale Lambda architecture?
In temporal logic negation explodes. Data streams are immutable - once an event occurs it can't un-occur. Are you going to forbid negation too now in pursuit of your Consistency-God?

A logical system cannot prove its own consistency. There some Gödel a guy who wrote a theorem about that.

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.-- Walt Whitman

[Skepdick]

It makes sense consitency is an agreed upon interpretation and set of assumption that are subject to infinite regress....

Distributed consensus is a hard problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

Distributed anything is orders of magnitude more complex than mere linear logic.

[Eodnhoj7]

It makes sense consitency is an agreed upon interpretation and set of assumption that are subject to infinite regress....

Distributed consensus is a hard problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

Distributed anything is orders of magnitude more complex than mere linear logic.

And that is very loosely, on my part, what I am saying (or implying) in regards to consistency and the actual word "consistency". However I am not focusing on consensus, specifically as a variable of change (although it is a larger factor), but rather that modern consensus or the "religion of analysis" requires a perpetual definition of words causing consensus itself not only being dynamic change but a cause of dynamic change.

You have an infinite string of symbols transitive to symbols. If not infinite, then a number approach infinity.

This string is fundamentally a loop however, connecting itself through various symbols.

Any time you "defined something" such as "consistency" you are localizing some portion of this self looping web, cut this portion out, and then tying it into a knot.

This now represents the word, in this case "consistency".

The problem is that in creating a knot, it not only causes a further number of knots (as each word is a knot metaphorically speaking) but it causes the actual definition of the word to fragment.

This may not sound clear at first.

With the increase in "knots" comes an increase in words.

With the increase in words comes an increase in connects to other words, as words and connections increase so does the "variability" of the word itself.

So I have 10 words

"Horfblob" is connected to 3 words with these three words connected to the remaining six.

A new set of words is added, let's say 3 more.

These three are connected to the 3 words that are connected to Horfblob, as well as the remainders too.

This is done to increase the immediate definition of these three words, but in doing so by proxy does the same to Horfblob.

Horblob is now defined by words that are more general in nature, hence horfblob becomes more general in nature.


So
1H/(3x/6y) = 2z with x and y representing just words as variables. Z observes "meaning" where the closer to unity (1) the more "meaning" H has by strictly assuming it for what it is...

Then

1H/(3x/9y) = 3z

The 1H/(3×/12y) = 4z

Then

....

Eventually as the increase in words occurs, required to define the words, so does the increase in meaning for horfblob.

1H/(3×/n)= (a)z

However this continual increase cause horfblob, to not just have a core meaning, but exist as a variable those localized a general dynamic change; hence it is always inconsistent. What is consistent is the immediate three words it is connected too, however with progressive defintion they become inconsistent as well.

1H/(3x/n ---> inf) = (a ---> inf)z

Thus "horblob" is fundamentally a variable. It is a transition state, composed of transition states.

With the increase in definition, in any system comes an increase in generality. Thus systems with less words, less "assumptions", are more definite in nature. The problem is that language keeps changing...so when looked at the meaning of a word you are observing a transition state...a state of dynamic change.

Thus inconsitency is fundamentally what a word or variable is. Consistency can only be defined as "localized change".

A consistent system cannot occur, in the traditional sense. It cannot only be observed as anything except as a dynamic or irrational ratio....a "boundary of change", which is constant due to its progressive looping setting up its foundations for identity...but nothing more.

Each word thus is subject to the equivocation fallacy, in these regards, but exists as "valid" as each word is a ratio of words...but this ratio is ever expanding.

[PeteOlcott]

If you negate a negative, using a negative, you are just repeating the principle of explosion.

The principle of explosion, if negated needs a thetical principle.

Mathematical logic is inconsistent, all logic is inconsistent. Language is inconsistent.

Inconsistency is inconsistent.

So it makes sense to you that someone would intentionally force Mathematical logic to be
inconsistent by appending the Principle of Explosion to the set of rules-of-inference?

It makes sense consitency is an agreed upon interpretation and set of assumption that are subject to infinite regress....

The entire body of conceptual knowledge is mutually self defining semantic tautologies.

All of mathematical logic works this same way. ONLY incorrect reasoning
shows otherwise. There are a set of finite strings comprising the axioms,
rules-of-inference and axiom schemata** of each formal system / body of
conceptual knowledge.

The satisfaction of sequences of these finite strings concurrently defines
true and provable whenever the set of premises Γ is empty:

*Introduction to Mathematical logic Sixth edition Elliott Mendelson (2015):28*
sequence B1, …, Bk of wfs such that C is Bk and, for each i,
either Bi is an axiom or Bi is in Γ, or Bi is a direct consequence
by some rule of inference of some of the preceding wfs in the sequence.

** axiom schemata algorithmically compress an infinite set of axioms
making the list of axioms, rules-of-inference and axiom schemata
a finite list.

For example the set of all relations between finite strings of numeric
digits for this relational operator: "=" and this function: "+" is
specified by its corresponding algorithm.

[Skepdick]

** axiom schemata algorithmically compress an infinite set of axioms
making the list of axioms, rules-of-inference and axiom schemata
a finite list.

*cough* https://www.cs.wcupa.edu/rkline/fcs/re-pump.html

The existence of non-regular languages is guaranteed by the fact that the regular languages of any alphabet are countable, and we know that the set of all subsets of strings is not countable.

Truth escapes Pete's box. Again.

[Eodnhoj7]

So it makes sense to you that someone would intentionally force Mathematical logic to be
inconsistent by appending the Principle of Explosion to the set of rules-of-inference?

It makes sense consitency is an agreed upon interpretation and set of assumption that are subject to infinite regress....

The entire body of conceptual knowledge is mutually self defining semantic tautologies.

All of mathematical logic works this same way. ONLY incorrect reasoning
shows otherwise. There are a set of finite strings comprising the axioms,
rules-of-inference and axiom schemata** of each formal system / body of
conceptual knowledge.

The satisfaction of sequences of these finite strings concurrently defines
true and provable whenever the set of premises Γ is empty:

*Introduction to Mathematical logic Sixth edition Elliott Mendelson (2015):28*
sequence B1, …, Bk of wfs such that C is Bk and, for each i,
either Bi is an axiom or Bi is in Γ, or Bi is a direct consequence
by some rule of inference of some of the preceding wfs in the sequence.

** axiom schemata algorithmically compress an infinite set of axioms
making the list of axioms, rules-of-inference and axiom schemata
a finite list.

For example the set of all relations between finite strings of numeric
digits for this relational operator: "=" and this function: "+" is
specified by its corresponding algorithm.

Then the "red" observes a loop...and you are going in circles.

[PeteOlcott]

** axiom schemata algorithmically compress an infinite set of axioms
making the list of axioms, rules-of-inference and axiom schemata
a finite list.

*cough* https://www.cs.wcupa.edu/rkline/fcs/re-pump.html

The existence of non-regular languages is guaranteed by the fact that the regular languages of any alphabet are countable, and we know that the set of all subsets of strings is not countable.

Truth escapes Pete's box. Again.

You don't really know jack shit. All this set theory stuff is AFU.
The set of all reals is countable knucklehead. Every real corresponds
to an adjacent geometric point on a number line and these are countable.