David Ullrich on Godel

Beware the difference between GODELS PROOF
and MATHEMATICS ABOUT GODELS PROOF.
The latter is a lot more convoluted and not necessary to 1st follow
the proof itself.

“It is an error to believe that rigour is the enemy of simplicity. On
the contrary we find it confirmed by numerous examples that the
rigorous method is at the same time the simpler and the more easily
comprehended. The very effort for rigor forces us to find out simpler
methods of proof.” - David Hilbert, 'Mathematical Problems', Bulletin
of the American Mathematical Society (Jul 1902), 8, 441

“18 Word Proof of the Godel, Rosser and Smullyan Incompleteness
Theorems” http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2010-July/014890.html

Post by Graham Cooper
T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) & T2|-PRV[ T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) ]
!PRV(GS-GN) is true in THEORY 1
and
that fact is proven in THEORY 2.
GS = !PRV(GS-GN) *a Godel Statement

What are T1, PRV, GS-GN, T2, THEORY 1, THEORY 2 and GS? What is the
purpose of displaying these expressions?

Post by Graham Cooper
Also beware the phrase
"IN ANY THEORY WITH SUFFICIENT EXPRESSIVENESS..
..WE CAN CONSTRUCT THIS SENTENCE ..."

Ironically, they say that exactly because they have not formalized
it. They don’t know what the actual premise is, and so they use a
meaningless phrase “sufficiently expressive”.

Post by Graham Cooper
That only holds for ZERO-AXIOM or INCONSISTENT systems where ALL (true
and false) theorems follow.

It holds for any system in which we can express “x is the number of a
provable sentence”, and the premise (soundness or w-consistency) is
true, depending on the version being cited from his 1931 paper. Both
hold for ordinary Peano Arithmetic.

It is not related to set theory. Godel’s systems define sets in an
unobjectionable way and there is no reference to anything that is not
clearly a set (generally of natural numbers.)

C-B

Post by Graham Cooper
Herc

Graham Cooper

2012-10-07 21:37:18 UTC

Beware the difference between GODELS PROOF
and MATHEMATICS ABOUT GODELS PROOF.
The latter is a lot more convoluted and not necessary to 1st follow
the proof itself.

“It is an error to believe that rigour is the enemy of simplicity. On
the contrary we find it confirmed by numerous examples that the
rigorous method is at the same time the simpler and the more easily
comprehended. The very effort for rigor forces us to find out simpler
methods of proof.” - David Hilbert, 'Mathematical Problems', Bulletin
of the American Mathematical Society (Jul 1902), 8, 441
“18 Word Proof of the Godel, Rosser and Smullyan Incompleteness
Theorems” http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2010-July/014890.html

Post by Graham Cooper
T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) & T2|-PRV[ T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) ]
!PRV(GS-GN) is true in THEORY 1
and
that fact is proven in THEORY 2.
GS = !PRV(GS-GN) *a Godel Statement

What are T1, PRV, GS-GN, T2, THEORY 1, THEORY 2 and GS? What is the
purpose of displaying these expressions?

EXACTLY MY POINT!

Beware the difference between GODELS PROOF
and MATHEMATICS ABOUT GODELS PROOF.

Post by Graham Cooper
Also beware the phrase
"IN ANY THEORY WITH SUFFICIENT EXPRESSIVENESS..
..WE CAN CONSTRUCT THIS SENTENCE ..."

Ironically, they say that exactly because they have not formalized
it. They don’t know what the actual premise is, and so they use a
meaningless phrase “sufficiently expressive”.

Post by Graham Cooper
That only holds for ZERO-AXIOM or INCONSISTENT systems where ALL (true
and false) theorems follow.

NO!
TARSKI makes the EXACT SAME ERROR as GODEL

[DARYL]
Fix a coding for arithmetic, that is, a way to associate a unique
natural number with each statement of arithmetic. In terms of this
coding, a truth predicate Tr(x) is a formula with the following
property: For any statement S in the language of arithmetic,
Tr(#S) <-> S
holds (where #S means the natural number coding the sentence S).
If Tr(x) is a formula of arithmetic, then using techniques
developed by Godel, we can construct a sentence L such that
L <-> ~Tr(#L)
But by the definition of a truth predicate, we also have
L <-> Tr(#L)

NOTICE THE "we can construct a sentence L"

*a* sentence means *any* sentence here.

START WITH AN INCONSISTENT THEORY

then using techniques developed
by Godel, we can construct *ANY* sentence L

T |- W
T |- L
T |- L<->~G2T(L) *IN T |- W ANY FORMULA IS TRUE
T |- L<->G2T(L)
T |- L , T |- ~L *contradiction
T |- W *now any formula is true

Yeh so?

*************************

For any Theory T and it's Theorems t1, t2,t3,...

T |- t1 ^ t2 ^ t3 ^ t4 ^ ....

t3 <-> ~true(#t3)
t3 <-> not(t3)
IS CONSTRUCTABLE

ergo:
T |- t1 ^ t2 ^ t3 ^ (t3<->not(t3)) ^ t4 ^ ...
T |- t1 ^ t2 ^ t3 ^ not(t3) ^ t4 ^ ...
T |- contradiction

T |- any formula
ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet
from a contradiction, anything follows

{t3, !t3} |- W

So by allowing *any formula* you can possibly construct to be a
theorem of the Theory, Tarski proved that ANY_FORMULA can be a theorem
of the Theory.

Herc
KINGS Beach
QUEENSland
--
http://tinyURL.com/DEFINITION-MATHEMATICS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-HYPERREALS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-HALT-PROOF
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-QUESTIONS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-POWERSET
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-THEOREM
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-TARSKI
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-FORALL
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-TURING
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GODEL
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-PROOF
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-LOGIC
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-BRAIN
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-SETS
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-PERM
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-P-NP
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-LIAR
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GUT
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-BB
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-AI

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-07 23:25:40 UTC

Beware the difference between GODELS PROOF
and MATHEMATICS ABOUT GODELS PROOF.
The latter is a lot more convoluted and not necessary to 1st follow
the proof itself.

“It is an error to believe that rigour is the enemy of simplicity. On
the contrary we find it confirmed by numerous examples that the
rigorous method is at the same time the simpler and the more easily
comprehended. The very effort for rigor forces us to find out simpler
methods of proof.” - David Hilbert, 'Mathematical Problems', Bulletin
of the American Mathematical Society (Jul 1902), 8, 441
“18 Word Proof of the Godel, Rosser and Smullyan Incompleteness
Theorems” http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2010-July/014890.html

Post by Graham Cooper
T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) & T2|-PRV[ T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) ]
!PRV(GS-GN) is true in THEORY 1
and
that fact is proven in THEORY 2.
GS = !PRV(GS-GN) *a Godel Statement

What are T1, PRV, GS-GN, T2, THEORY 1, THEORY 2 and GS? What is the
purpose of displaying these expressions?

EXACTLY MY POINT!

What is exactly your point? I asked you to define the elements of
your expressions and you don;t answer me and then say you agree with
something.

What are T1, PRV, GS-GN, T2, THEORY 1, THEORY 2 and GS? What is the
purpose of displaying these expressions?

Post by Graham Cooper
Beware the difference between GODELS PROOF
and MATHEMATICS ABOUT GODELS PROOF.

Post by Graham Cooper
Also beware the phrase
"IN ANY THEORY WITH SUFFICIENT EXPRESSIVENESS..
..WE CAN CONSTRUCT THIS SENTENCE ..."

Ironically, they say that exactly because they have not formalized
it. They don’t know what the actual premise is, and so they use a
meaningless phrase “sufficiently expressive”.

Post by Graham Cooper
That only holds for ZERO-AXIOM or INCONSISTENT systems where ALL (true
and false) theorems follow.

NO!

Can you prove that? Can you give a system in which provability is
expressible and there is no undecidable sentence?

If we can express "wff x is provable", then we can express "wff x with
x substituted for its free variable is not provable". Let w(x)
express that.

Define TW(x,y) to be wff x with y substituted for its free variable is
true, and PR likewise but it's provable. Let M be the Godel number of
w.

TW(M,x) is true means w(x) is true means ~PR(x,x). Then TW(M,M) iff
~PR(M,M) and TW does not coincide with PR. So a sentence is false and
provable (but that would not be SOUND) or true and unprovable. Let W
be true and unprovable. Then if ~W is provable then, again by
soundness, it is false, but it is true, so ~W is not provable and W is
undecidable.

Post by Graham Cooper
TARSKI makes the EXACT SAME ERROR as GODEL
[DARYL]
Fix a coding for arithmetic, that is, a way to associate a unique
natural number with each statement of arithmetic. In terms of this
coding, a truth predicate Tr(x) is a formula with the following
property: For any statement S in the language of arithmetic,
Tr(#S) <-> S
holds (where #S means the natural number coding the sentence S).
If Tr(x) is a formula of arithmetic, then using techniques
developed by Godel, we can construct a sentence L such that
L <-> ~Tr(#L)
But by the definition of a truth predicate, we also have
L <-> Tr(#L)

That is Tarski's Undefinability Theorem. What is the point?

What are T, W, L and G2T? Again you are displaying expressions with
undefined primitives. What is this supposed to represent? Is this
supposed to be a proof of something?

What is the point of displaying expressions without definitions of
their symbols in a list? You start with T |- W and end with the same
expression T |- W but the 2nd time you add "*now any formula is
true". Why do you have to list it as if it were derived twice? Are
you meaning that T is a set of axioms and W is provable from them?
But you haven't define T or W or the other primitives e.g. G2T.

What are you trying to say?

Post by Graham Cooper
Yeh so?
*************************
For any Theory T and it's Theorems t1, t2,t3,...
T |- t1 ^ t2 ^ t3 ^ t4 ^ ....
t3 <-> ~true(#t3)

Since t3 is a theorem then it will be true by soundness, a premise
made in one version of Godel's theorem.

How do you justify this statement about t3? You haven't mentioned t3
before. Is this supposed to be true of all theorems?

Post by Graham Cooper
t3 <-> not(t3)
IS CONSTRUCTABLE

What is not constructable?

Your writings are quite mysterious! Maybe if you defined what the
various variable names represent it would add some meaning to these
expressions.

C-B

Post by Graham Cooper
T |- t1 ^ t2 ^ t3 ^ (t3<->not(t3)) ^ t4 ^ ...
T |- t1 ^ t2 ^ t3 ^ not(t3) ^ t4 ^ ...
T |- contradiction
T |- any formula
ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet
from a contradiction, anything follows
{t3, !t3} |- W
So by allowing *any formula* you can possibly construct to be a
theorem of the Theory, Tarski proved that ANY_FORMULA can be a theorem
of the Theory.
Herc
KINGS Beach
QUEENSland
--http://tinyURL.com/DEFINITION-MATHEMATICShttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-HYPERREALShttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-HALT-PROOFhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-QUESTIONShttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-POWERSEThttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-THEOREMhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-TARSKIhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-FORALLhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-TURINGhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GODELhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-PROOFhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-LOGIChttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-BRAINhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-SETShttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-PERMhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-P-NPhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-LIARhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GUThttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-BBhttp://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-AI

Graham Cooper

2012-10-07 23:55:21 UTC

Beware the difference between GODELS PROOF
and MATHEMATICS ABOUT GODELS PROOF.
The latter is a lot more convoluted and not necessary to 1st follow
the proof itself.

“It is an error to believe that rigour is the enemy of simplicity. On
the contrary we find it confirmed by numerous examples that the
rigorous method is at the same time the simpler and the more easily
comprehended. The very effort for rigor forces us to find out simpler
methods of proof.” - David Hilbert, 'Mathematical Problems', Bulletin
of the American Mathematical Society (Jul 1902), 8, 441
“18 Word Proof of the Godel, Rosser and Smullyan Incompleteness
Theorems” http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2010-July/014890.html

Post by Graham Cooper
T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) & T2|-PRV[ T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) ]
!PRV(GS-GN) is true in THEORY 1
and
that fact is proven in THEORY 2.
GS = !PRV(GS-GN) *a Godel Statement

What are T1, PRV, GS-GN, T2, THEORY 1, THEORY 2 and GS? What is the
purpose of displaying these expressions?

EXACTLY MY POINT!

What is exactly your point? I asked you to define the elements of
your expressions and you don;t answer me and then say you agree with
something.

I quoted my point directly after.

When people DISCUSS Godel's proof they use formula such as

T |- G

In Theory T, G is a Theorem

My point being this is commonly confused for Godel's Proof itself.

What are T1, PRV, GS-GN, T2, THEORY 1, THEORY 2 and GS? What is the
purpose of displaying these expressions?

In Godel's Proof the Godel Statement GS
is true in one Theory T1
and proven in a seperate Theory T2

NOTE: this is talking ABOUT Godel's proof,
not PART of the proof.

Post by Graham Cooper
Beware the difference between GODELS PROOF
and MATHEMATICS ABOUT GODELS PROOF.

Post by Graham Cooper
Also beware the phrase
"IN ANY THEORY WITH SUFFICIENT EXPRESSIVENESS..
..WE CAN CONSTRUCT THIS SENTENCE ..."

Ironically, they say that exactly because they have not formalized
it. They don’t know what the actual premise is, and so they use a
meaningless phrase “sufficiently expressive”.

Post by Graham Cooper
That only holds for ZERO-AXIOM or INCONSISTENT systems where ALL (true
and false) theorems follow.

NO!

Can you prove that? Can you give a system in which provability is
expressible and there is no undecidable sentence?

Aye Curumba!

If we can express "wff x is provable", then we can express "wff x with
x substituted for its free variable is not provable". Let w(x)
express that

NO!

Also beware the phrase

"IN ANY THEORY WITH SUFFICIENT EXPRESSIVENESS..
..WE CAN CONSTRUCT THIS SENTENCE ..."

.

Define TW(x,y) to be wff x with y substituted for its free variable is
true, and PR likewise but it's provable. Let M be the Godel number of
w.
TW(M,x) is true means w(x) is true means ~PR(x,x). Then TW(M,M) iff
~PR(M,M) and TW does not coincide with PR. So a sentence is false and
provable (but that would not be SOUND) or true and unprovable. Let W
be true and unprovable. Then if ~W is provable then, again by
soundness, it is false, but it is true, so ~W is not provable and W is
undecidable.

That is Tarski's Undefinability Theorem. What is the point?

What are T, W, L and G2T? Again you are displaying expressions with
undefined primitives. What is this supposed to represent? Is this
supposed to be a proof of something?
What is the point of displaying expressions without definitions of
their symbols in a list? You start with T |- W and end with the same
expression T |- W but the 2nd time you add "*now any formula is
true". Why do you have to list it as if it were derived twice? Are
you meaning that T is a set of axioms and W is provable from them?
But you haven't define T or W or the other primitives e.g. G2T.
What are you trying to say?

Post by Graham Cooper
Yeh so?
*************************
For any Theory T and it's Theorems t1, t2,t3,...
T |- t1 ^ t2 ^ t3 ^ t4 ^ ....
t3 <-> ~true(#t3)

Since t3 is a theorem then it will be true by soundness, a premise
made in one version of Godel's theorem.
How do you justify this statement about t3? You haven't mentioned t3
before. Is this supposed to be true of all theorems?

Post by Graham Cooper
t3 <-> not(t3)
IS CONSTRUCTABLE

What is not constructable?
Your writings are quite mysterious! Maybe if you defined what the
various variable names represent it would add some meaning to these
expressions.
C-B

T |- W

A theory T that derives all formula, Omega, Infinity.

t1 ^ ~t2 |- W

From a contradiction all formula can be derived.

*****************

PUT IT SIMPLY

*****************

YOU CAN NOT ADD ANY FORMULA TO ANY THEORY

Herc

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-10 22:56:36 UTC

Beware the difference between GODELS PROOF
and MATHEMATICS ABOUT GODELS PROOF.
The latter is a lot more convoluted and not necessary to 1st follow
the proof itself.

“It is an error to believe that rigour is the enemy of simplicity. On
the contrary we find it confirmed by numerous examples that the
rigorous method is at the same time the simpler and the more easily
comprehended. The very effort for rigor forces us to find out simpler
methods of proof.” - David Hilbert, 'Mathematical Problems', Bulletin
of the American Mathematical Society (Jul 1902), 8, 441
“18 Word Proof of the Godel, Rosser and Smullyan Incompleteness
Theorems” http://www.cs.nyu.edu/pipermail/fom/2010-July/014890.html

Post by Graham Cooper
T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) & T2|-PRV[ T1|-!(PRV(GS-GN)) ]
!PRV(GS-GN) is true in THEORY 1
and
that fact is proven in THEORY 2.
GS = !PRV(GS-GN) *a Godel Statement

What are T1, PRV, GS-GN, T2, THEORY 1, THEORY 2 and GS? What is the
purpose of displaying these expressions?

EXACTLY MY POINT!

What is exactly your point? I asked you to define the elements of
your expressions and you don;t answer me and then say you agree with
something.

I quoted my point directly after.
When people DISCUSS Godel's proof they use formula such as
T |- G
In Theory T, G is a Theorem
My point being this is commonly confused for Godel's Proof itself.

What are T1, PRV, GS-GN, T2, THEORY 1, THEORY 2 and GS? What is the
purpose of displaying these expressions?

In Godel's Proof the Godel Statement GS
is true in one Theory T1
and proven in a seperate Theory T2
NOTE: this is talking ABOUT Godel's proof,
not PART of the proof.

Post by Graham Cooper
Beware the difference between GODELS PROOF
and MATHEMATICS ABOUT GODELS PROOF.

Post by Graham Cooper
Also beware the phrase
"IN ANY THEORY WITH SUFFICIENT EXPRESSIVENESS..
..WE CAN CONSTRUCT THIS SENTENCE ..."

Ironically, they say that exactly because they have not formalized
it. They don’t know what the actual premise is, and so they use a
meaningless phrase “sufficiently expressive”.

Post by Graham Cooper
That only holds for ZERO-AXIOM or INCONSISTENT systems where ALL (true
and false) theorems follow.

NO!

Can you prove that? Can you give a system in which provability is
expressible and there is no undecidable sentence?

Aye Curumba!

If we can express "wff x is provable", then we can express "wff x with
x substituted for its free variable is not provable". Let w(x)
express that

NO!

w is S in Godel's article. What is S if not w?

"We will assume the class-signs are somehow numbered, call the nth one
Rn. . . . Now we will define a class K of natural numbers as follows:
K = { n e N| ~provable(Rn(n)) } (where provable(x) means x is a
provable formula).

Since the concepts which appear in the definiens are all definable in
PM, so too is the concept K which is constituted from them, i.e.
there is a class-sign S such that the formula [S; n]—interpreted as to
its content—states that
the natural number n belongs to K."

http://jacqkrol.x10.mx/assets/articles/godel-1931.pdf

Post by Graham Cooper
Also beware the phrase
"IN ANY THEORY WITH SUFFICIENT EXPRESSIVENESS..
..WE CAN CONSTRUCT THIS SENTENCE ..."
.

That is Tarski's Undefinability Theorem. What is the point?

What are T, W, L and G2T? Again you are displaying expressions with
undefined primitives. What is this supposed to represent? Is this
supposed to be a proof of something?
What is the point of displaying expressions without definitions of
their symbols in a list? You start with T |- W and end with the same
expression T |- W but the 2nd time you add "*now any formula is
true". Why do you have to list it as if it were derived twice? Are
you meaning that T is a set of axioms and W is provable from them?
But you haven't define T or W or the other primitives e.g. G2T.
What are you trying to say?

Post by Graham Cooper
Yeh so?
*************************
For any Theory T and it's Theorems t1, t2,t3,...
T |- t1 ^ t2 ^ t3 ^ t4 ^ ....
t3 <-> ~true(#t3)

Since t3 is a theorem then it will be true by soundness, a premise
made in one version of Godel's theorem.
How do you justify this statement about t3? You haven't mentioned t3
before. Is this supposed to be true of all theorems?

Post by Graham Cooper
t3 <-> not(t3)
IS CONSTRUCTABLE

What is not constructable?
Your writings are quite mysterious! Maybe if you defined what the
various variable names represent it would add some meaning to these
expressions.
C-B

T |- W
A theory T that derives all formula, Omega, Infinity.
t1 ^ ~t2 |- W
From a contradiction all formula can be derived.
*****************
PUT IT SIMPLY
*****************
YOU CAN NOT ADD ANY FORMULA TO ANY THEORY
Herc

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-07 19:03:00 UTC

The real question is, has such a formalization been published? To
state that it hasn't because everybody knows there's no reason to is
absurd on the face of it.

The true answer is that Ullrich and his professor buddies aren't smart
enough to formalize Godel's theorems, so he says there's no reason to.

The standard answer to the question of where is there a formalization
of these theorems is to cite a huge book which has no such thing.
When asked where it is in the book, they decline to say, sometimes
making silly statements like "Do your own homework." and the assertion
that such a formalization exists goes unsubstantiated.

It is easy to debunk because it makes a simple claim: There exists a
proof that was formally derived. No such proof has been published.
In fact, claims that anything outside of propositional calculus or
certain special systems e.g. Groups, have been formalized at most give
a long sequence of expressions without explanation of an actual proof
of the theorem - a logical argument expressed in natural language that
is formally derived. It is just more of what Einstein so aptly warned
us about:

"The skeptic will say: 'It may well be true that this system of
equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not
prove that it corresponds to nature.' You are right, dear skeptic.
Experience alone can decide on truth. ... Pure logical thinking cannot
yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of
reality starts from experience and ends in it." (Albert Einstein,
1954)

C-B

Jack Campin

2012-10-09 09:24:56 UTC

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."

David was quoting a crank. Somebody much like you two.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

Graham Cooper

2012-10-09 10:22:51 UTC

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."

David was quoting a crank. Somebody much like you two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

Is the following sentence true or false Jack?

Jack Campin cannot prove that this sentence is true.

We all know it's true! Do you?

Give your reasoning!

Herc

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-10 02:00:38 UTC

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."

David was quoting a crank. Somebody much like you two.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- --

Is the following sentence true or false Jack?
Jack Campin cannot prove that this sentence is true.
We all know it's true! Do you?

Yes but only because he knows everything you say (to him) is true.

Post by Graham Cooper
Give your reasoning!

It's true and unprovable, so that is not possible.

C-B

Post by Graham Cooper
Herc

Jesse F. Hughes

2012-10-09 14:57:03 UTC

Post by Jack Campin

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."

David was quoting a crank. Somebody much like you two.

Quite so, but watch your quotations. Graham did not write the remark
attributed to him.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"You do know that after they get done with [outlawing] cigarettes,
they're gonna come after guns, right?"
-- AM talk radio host Mike Gallagher

Graham Cooper

2012-10-09 20:52:18 UTC

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."

David was quoting a crank. Somebody much like you two.

Quite so, but watch your quotations. Graham did not write the remark
attributed to him.

Quite so! Given your inability to answer this simple question on
*unprovable*, John Jones quote seems entirely correct!

Is the following sentence true or false Jesse?

*Jesse F. Hughes cannot prove that this sentence is true.*

We all know it's true! Do you?
Give your reasoning!

YOU CANT PROVE IT! JESSE F HUGHES CANNOT PROVE ITS TRUE!

Herc

Jesse F. Hughes

2012-10-09 22:21:35 UTC

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."

David was quoting a crank. Somebody much like you two.

Quite so, but watch your quotations. Graham did not write the remark
attributed to him.

It's a cute little paradox. It seems that it is true, and that I can't
prove it, although everyone else can.

It's a genuine conundrum, it seems to me. The usual way out of such
problems is, of course, to claim that (at least some) self-referential
sentences are neither true nor false. I don't see any better way out of
this paradox, but neither do I think that it's attractive.

Post by Graham Cooper
We all know it's true! Do you?
Give your reasoning!
YOU CANT PROVE IT! JESSE F HUGHES CANNOT PROVE ITS TRUE!

Right. It's a natural-language analog to Goedel's incompleteness
theorem, lacking some of the clarity of the original due to the
vagueness of natural language and its semantics, but interesting
nonetheless.

But so what? What point are you trying to make? (He asks, knowing full
likely that he will come to regret it.)

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"I guess it's a passable day to die."
-- Lt. Dwarf, /Star Wreck:In the Pirkinning/

Richard Tobin

2012-10-09 22:57:52 UTC

Post by Jesse F. Hughes
It's a cute little paradox.

It was invented by C. H. Whitely and directed at J. R. Lucas. Lucas
claimed that the human mind could not be a machine because a human can
see that the Godel sentence is true, and a machine can't. (Penrose
has argued along similar lines.) Whitely's sentence aims to show that
humans have the same problem.

-- Richard

Graham Cooper

2012-10-09 23:19:02 UTC

Post by Jesse F. Hughes
It's a cute little paradox.

I actually emailed it to Penrose!

"Roger Penrose cannot prove that this sentence is true".

He had cartoons drawn of a robot trying to figure out a Godel
Statement.

Herc

Richard Tobin

2012-10-09 23:27:59 UTC

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Jesse F. Hughes
It's a cute little paradox.

It was invented by C. H. Whitely and directed at J. R. Lucas.

I should have mentioned that Whitely's version of the sentence was
"Lucas cannot consistently assert this formula".

-- Richard

Graham Cooper

2012-10-09 23:34:45 UTC

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Jesse F. Hughes
It's a cute little paradox.

It was invented by C. H. Whitely and directed at J. R. Lucas.

I should have mentioned that Whitely's version of the sentence was
"Lucas cannot consistently assert this formula".
-- Richard

"That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
~John Jones (sci.logic)

Marshall

2012-10-10 18:44:24 UTC

Post by Richard Tobin
It was invented by C. H. Whitely and directed at J. R. Lucas. Lucas
claimed that the human mind could not be a machine because a human can
see that the Godel sentence is true, and a machine can't. (Penrose
has argued along similar lines.)

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.

It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

Marshall

Post by Richard Tobin
Whitely's sentence aims to show that
humans have the same problem.

LudovicoVan

2012-10-10 19:15:41 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb. In fact, have you got any argument pro
strong AI? Or, any achievements?

-LV

Nam Nguyen

2012-10-11 02:38:41 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.

If you can construct an automaton that is sophisticated
enough to process input and give responses (output)
cohesively homomorphic to a typical human behavior,
thinking, then you can't distinguish such behavior
from those of human being.

Post by LudovicoVan
Or, any achievements?

Not yet, perhaps. But the argument has to be logical and
correct. And it is.

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 03:15:44 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

It is your side here rather claiming conclusions: unfoundedly.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.

The whole behaviorism thing is of course just bollocks: only good for the
control of machines. (Can't you see it?)

Post by Nam Nguyen
If you can construct an automaton that is sophisticated
enough to process input and give responses (output)
cohesively homomorphic to a typical human behavior,
thinking, then you can't distinguish such behavior
from those of human being.

Post by LudovicoVan
Or, any achievements?

Not yet, perhaps.

Not perhaps: definitely.

Post by Nam Nguyen
But the argument has to be logical and correct. And it is.

Wrong: this is not a matter of logic but of facts. And there are none to
support strong AI.

-LV

Nam Nguyen

2012-10-11 03:32:41 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

It is your side here rather claiming conclusions: unfoundedly.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.

The whole behaviorism thing is of course just bollocks: only good for
the control of machines. (Can't you see it?)

Post by LudovicoVan
Or, any achievements?

Not yet, perhaps.

Not perhaps: definitely.

Post by Nam Nguyen
But the argument has to be logical and correct. And it is.

Wrong: this is not a matter of logic but of facts. And there are none
to support strong AI.

How do you know that there are hydrogen atoms in the outer layers of
stars in a galaxy 10 billion light years away that you can never travel
to, when all you have is just light spectra isomorphic to the hydrogen
gas lamp in your room?

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 03:37:39 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

It is your side here rather claiming conclusions: unfoundedly.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.

The whole behaviorism thing is of course just bollocks: only good for
the control of machines. (Can't you see it?)

Post by LudovicoVan
Or, any achievements?

Not yet, perhaps.

Not perhaps: definitely.

Post by Nam Nguyen
But the argument has to be logical and correct. And it is.

Wrong: this is not a matter of logic but of facts. And there are none
to support strong AI.

Is that meant in support of AI. I'll say this again: that an argument is
logical does not entail that it is true or even just sensible.

-LV

Nam Nguyen

2012-10-11 03:21:59 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.
If you can construct an automaton that is sophisticated
enough to process input and give responses (output)
cohesively homomorphic to a typical human behavior,
thinking, then you can't distinguish such behavior
from those of human being.

For example, setting all other knowings aside, a calculator
knows 2+2=4, as much as a human being does. But a sculptured
statue of human being doesn't.

Post by LudovicoVan
Or, any achievements?

Not yet, perhaps. But the argument has to be logical and
correct. And it is.

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 03:25:15 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
For example, setting all other knowings aside, a calculator
knows 2+2=4, as much as a human being does.

Does _it_ *know*?? What the heck is your definition of "knowing"?

Post by Nam Nguyen
But a sculptured statue of human being doesn't.

So a piece of metal knows but a piece of rock does not??

That is called discrimination... no, that is not even coherent.

-LV

Nam Nguyen

2012-10-11 03:40:01 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
For example, setting all other knowings aside, a calculator
knows 2+2=4, as much as a human being does.

Does _it_ *know*?? What the heck is your definition of "knowing"?

When you utter 2+2=4, would that be your knowledge, or not?

Post by Nam Nguyen
But a sculptured statue of human being doesn't.

So a piece of metal knows but a piece of rock does not??

Tell me something. When you write "2+2=" on a rock, would it _respond_
in such a way that you would see "4" somewhere, somehow?

Post by LudovicoVan
That is called discrimination... no, that is not even coherent.

It's just a plain ignorance not to be able to tell the difference
between a calculator and a rock.

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 03:44:51 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
For example, setting all other knowings aside, a calculator
knows 2+2=4, as much as a human being does.

Does _it_ *know*?? What the heck is your definition of "knowing"?

When you utter 2+2=4, would that be your knowledge, or not?

Of course not! (It is not sufficient.)

Post by Nam Nguyen
It's just a plain ignorance not to be able to tell the difference
between a calculator and a rock.

Ignorance is to talk about things one shouldn't talk about.

-LV

Nam Nguyen

2012-10-11 03:52:21 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
For example, setting all other knowings aside, a calculator
knows 2+2=4, as much as a human being does.

Does _it_ *know*?? What the heck is your definition of "knowing"?

When you utter 2+2=4, would that be your knowledge, or not?

Of course not! (It is not sufficient.)

I suppose then _your_ "Of course not" isn't sufficiently reflecting
a knowledge.

Post by Nam Nguyen
It's just a plain ignorance not to be able to tell the difference
between a calculator and a rock.

Ignorance is to talk about things one shouldn't talk about.

Like, LudovicoVan's utterance 2+2=4 would _not_ be (from) his knowledge!

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 04:01:08 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
For example, setting all other knowings aside, a calculator
knows 2+2=4, as much as a human being does.

Does _it_ *know*?? What the heck is your definition of "knowing"?

When you utter 2+2=4, would that be your knowledge, or not?

Of course not! (It is not sufficient.)

I suppose then _your_ "Of course not" isn't sufficiently reflecting
a knowledge.

Idiot, is that all you can do, now resort to the personal insult?

Thanks for the laughs and EOD.

-LV

Nam Nguyen

2012-10-11 04:14:22 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
When you utter 2+2=4, would that be your knowledge, or not?

Of course not! (It is not sufficient.)

I suppose then _your_ "Of course not" isn't sufficiently reflecting
a knowledge.

Idiot, is that all you can do, now resort to the personal insult?

Post by Nam Nguyen
When you utter 2+2=4, would that be your knowledge, or not?

Of course not! (It is not sufficient.)

It's so obvious that you were (are) insulting yourself!

Post by LudovicoVan
Thanks for the laughs and EOD.

No; it's me who should thank you for some good break.

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 04:21:37 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
When you utter 2+2=4, would that be your knowledge, or not?

Of course not! (It is not sufficient.)

I suppose then _your_ "Of course not" isn't sufficiently reflecting
a knowledge.

Idiot, is that all you can do, now resort to the personal insult?

Post by Nam Nguyen
When you utter 2+2=4, would that be your knowledge, or not?

Of course not! (It is not sufficient.)

It's so obvious that you were (are) insulting yourself!

It is rather obvious that you are constructing a theorem personally against
me from quotes out of context. Surely not any theorem about strong AI.

Post by LudovicoVan
Thanks for the laughs and EOD.

No; it's me who should thank you for some good break.

Make the most out of it as it will hardly happen again that I waste my time
with you. For your info, you have a superiority complex, which is fine, but
nothing interesting to bring along with it, which is not fine.

-LV

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-11 15:15:23 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
For example, setting all other knowings aside, a calculator
knows 2+2=4, as much as a human being does.

Does _it_ *know*?? What the heck is your definition of "knowing"?

When you utter 2+2=4, would that be your knowledge, or not?

Of course not! (It is not sufficient.)

Post by Nam Nguyen
It's just a plain ignorance not to be able to tell the difference
between a calculator and a rock.

Ignorance is to talk about things one shouldn't talk about.

So libraries are places of ignorance?

C-B

-LV

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-11 15:12:53 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
For example, setting all other knowings aside, a calculator
knows 2+2=4, as much as a human being does.

Does _it_ *know*?? What the heck is your definition of "knowing"?

When you utter 2+2=4, would that be your knowledge, or not?

Post by Nam Nguyen
But a sculptured statue of human being doesn't.

So a piece of metal knows but a piece of rock does not??

Tell me something. When you write "2+2=" on a rock, would it _respond_
in such a way that you would see "4" somewhere, somehow?

That is called discrimination... no, that is not even coherent.

It's just a plain ignorance not to be able to tell the difference
between a calculator and a rock.

Make that a rock with little pieces crumbling off. There is no way
that you can say that a computer can calculate more than a pile of
rocks. One simple proof: Cavemen had only rocks and they eventually
built computers. But without a knowledge of history, we can easily
simulate a computer with rocks. Implementing Combinatory Logic is one
way.

They are both calculators. How can you draw a logical distinction
between them?

(I just mentioned that to a neighbor yesterday and she agreed. And
she has a degree in Math from Harvard.)

C-B

Post by Nam Nguyen
--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-11 15:06:21 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.
If you can construct an automaton that is sophisticated
enough to process input and give responses (output)
cohesively homomorphic to a typical human behavior,
thinking, then you can't distinguish such behavior
from those of human being.

For example, setting all other knowings aside, a calculator
knows 2+2=4, as much as a human being does. But a sculptured
statue of human being doesn't.

Unless there is a tape recorder playing hidden in it to freak people
out.

C-B

Post by LudovicoVan
Or, any achievements?

Not yet, perhaps. But the argument has to be logical and
correct. And it is.

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.
NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 03:22:03 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.

Post by Marshall
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the form of
imagining that a machine would behave a certain way in certain
circumstances and then concluding from one's imaginary observations that
strong AI is impossible.

It is rather funny how all arguments pro strong AI are in fact not even
wrong.

-LV

Nam Nguyen

2012-10-11 03:43:32 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.

So?

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 03:45:49 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.

So?

If you don't get it, I cannot explain it.

-LV

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-11 15:16:29 UTC

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.

So?

If you don't get it, I cannot explain it.

You can only explain things that he gets? Watch out - you may be
severly limiting your logical abilities.

C-B

Post by LudovicoVan
-LV

LudovicoVan

2012-10-12 09:48:47 UTC

<snip>

Post by LudovicoVan
If you don't get it, I cannot explain it.

You can only explain things that he gets?

That is what I conclude *after* I have tried.

Post by Charlie-Boo
Watch out - you may be severly limiting your logical abilities.

Mine? You yourself have a peculiar way of reasoning...

-LV

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 03:46:52 UTC

So?

Please note that I am not yet calling you a liar, despite you are patently
there already.

-LV

Nam Nguyen

2012-10-11 03:53:43 UTC

So?

Please note that I am not yet calling you a liar, despite you are
patently there already.

What did I lie about?

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 04:06:07 UTC

So?

Please note that I am not yet calling you a liar, despite you are
patently there already.

What did I lie about?

To begin with, learn to quote.

-LV

Nam Nguyen

2012-10-11 04:18:18 UTC

So?

Please note that I am not yet calling you a liar, despite you are
patently there already.

What did I lie about?

To begin with, learn to quote.

???

Anyway, enough of a break.

bye.

--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

LudovicoVan

2012-10-11 04:22:56 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
Anyway, enough of a break.
bye.

Bye bye smart ass. And give us a shout when you have "proven" strong AI...

-LV

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-11 15:21:04 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
Anyway, enough of a break.
bye.

Bye bye smart ass. And give us a shout when you have "proven" strong AI...
-LV

AI is BS. Sam Donaldson on ABC News pointed out that a person using a
pocket calculator is smarter than any human alive but is that AI?

C-B

LudovicoVan

2012-10-12 09:51:41 UTC

Post by Nam Nguyen
Anyway, enough of a break.
bye.

Bye bye smart ass. And give us a shout when you have "proven" strong AI...

AI is BS.

Strong AI has just not been invented yet: it would need a radical change of
perspective, a paradigmatic shift. Then of course the odds are all for
human extinction to happen before we get anywhere...

-LV

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-11 15:19:23 UTC

So?

Please note that I am not yet calling you a liar, despite you are
patently there already.

What did I lie about?

To begin with, learn to quote.

Since when is ineptitude dishonest?

C-B

Post by LudovicoVan
-LV

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-11 15:18:06 UTC

So?

Please note that I am not yet calling you a liar, despite you are patently
there already.

Your use of a proposition that is true at the beginning of the
sentence and false at the end illustrates the principle that creates
the Liar Paradox.

C-B

Post by LudovicoVan
-LV

LudovicoVan

2012-10-12 09:58:55 UTC

So?

Please note that I am not yet calling you a liar, despite you are patently
there already.

Your use of a proposition that is true at the beginning of the
sentence and false at the end illustrates the principle that creates
the Liar Paradox.

No, it just shows that natural language is not formal language. And it
reminds us that all these paradoxes just show limits intrinsic to our formal
systems: e.g. Achilles does win the race.

-LV

Charlie-Boo

2012-10-11 15:14:38 UTC

Post by Jack Campin

Sigh. Smart people can be so dumb.
It's funny how many arguments against strong AI take the
form of imagining that a machine would behave a certain
way in certain circumstances and then concluding from one's
imaginary observations that strong AI is impossible.

I don't think that point is so dumb.

It is. We aren't the machines to "see" what they might "see",
"know" what they might "know". Hence to conclude they can't
"know" this and that is true is an invalid conclusion.

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro strong AI?

Yes. It's called homomorphism/isomorphism.

So?
--
----------------------------------------------------
There is no remainder in the mathematics of infinity.

Because remainder is part of division and division applies only to
numbers, not infinity.

C-B

Post by Jack Campin
NYOGEN SENZAKI
----------------------------------------------------

Marshall

2012-10-11 17:27:58 UTC

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro
strong AI? Or, any achievements?

Humans possess strong AI. This shows that strong AI can
be instantiated in physical objects: namely, human bodies.
In other words, an assembly of matter can have strong AI.
Any purpose-built assembly of matter can be called a
"machine." Thus, machines can have strong AI. All limitations
of today's AI efforts are trivially explained away by quantitative
arguments: our machines aren't computationally powerful
enough yet, obviously.

Arguments to the contrary amount to claims that there's
magic pixie dust inside our heads, and I will point to such
arguments and laugh. Ha ha!

Marshall

Graham Cooper

2012-10-11 20:19:58 UTC

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro
strong AI? Or, any achievements?

Humans possess strong AI. This shows that strong AI can
be instantiated in physical objects: namely, human bodies.
In other words, an assembly of matter can have strong AI.
Any purpose-built assembly of matter can be called a
"machine." Thus, machines can have strong AI. All limitations
of today's AI efforts are trivially explained away by quantitative
arguments: our machines aren't computationally powerful
enough yet, obviously.
Arguments to the contrary amount to claims that there's
magic pixie dust inside our heads, and I will point to such
arguments and laugh. Ha ha!

Deterministic processes could disallow quantum fine tuning.

e.g. a neuron fires 1/1,000,000TH SECOND LATER like a butterfly flaps
it's wings causing large scale chaotic differences in the output after
a short time.

www.tinyurl.com/blueprints-brain
www.tinyurl.com/blueprints-ai

Herc

Curt Welch

2012-10-11 21:10:50 UTC

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro
strong AI? =A0Or, any achievements?

Humans possess strong AI. This shows that strong AI can
be instantiated in physical objects: namely, human bodies.
In other words, an assembly of matter can have strong AI.
Any purpose-built assembly of matter can be called a
"machine." Thus, machines can have strong AI. All limitations
of today's AI efforts are trivially explained away by quantitative
arguments: our machines aren't computationally powerful
enough yet, obviously.
Arguments to the contrary amount to claims that there's
magic pixie dust inside our heads, and I will point to such
arguments and laugh. Ha ha!

Deterministic processes could disallow quantum fine tuning.
e.g. a neuron fires 1/1,000,000TH SECOND LATER like a butterfly flaps
it's wings causing large scale chaotic differences in the output after
a short time.

That doesn't seem to be relevant in the case of AI.

The brain is an agent that interacts with an environment that in effect, is
infinitely complex. Most the information that flows into the brain,
through the sensors, is effectively treated as noise from the highly
chaotic universe it interacts with. It flows in the sensors, and makes it
all the way through the system, and flows out to the muscles.

The main role of the brain, is to identify, and extract, the little bits of
data in all that noise, that is useful to the brain, for making action
decisions.

At no point in the all the processing done in the brain, does all the noise
seem to be "filtered out" of the signal. All that noise, as far as can be
seen, permeates every signal in the brain - effecting the firing of every
neuron in the brain.

The brain seems to work, as far as I can tell, by transforming the signals,
through averaging techniques, to extract the signals determined to be
useful, while leaving the rest of the data mixed in randomly, as noise.

If one neuron in the big mix starts to fire randomly, it won't break or
change much of anything, because unlike how our systems work, the brain
expects all the signals to contain lots of noise.

In other words, instead of creating butterfly effects, due to small shifts
of timing of a singe neuron, the brain seems to wire itself to do just the
opposite - to average out all the butterfly effects created by the huge
amounts of noise flowing into the system though the sensors. If anything,
the brain I think is better seen as an anti-chaos machine. It's a chaotic
system, tuned by learning, to make the "good" data, "float to the top", in
a sea of noise (so to say).

The small amounts of noise quantum effects might be adding to the signal
inside the brain, is irrelevant, to the huge amounts of noise, already
present in the signals, as they come from the sensors. It will filter out
the noise from quantum effect, at the same time it's dealing with the noise
from the environment.

If we implement similar processing, in a digital computer, which avoids the
addition of the quantum noise to the digital signal, it won't make a lick
of difference, because the real noise that floods every signal, came from
the environment already.

At least, that is how I see it...

--
Curt Welch http://CurtWelch.Com/
***@kcwc.com http://NewsReader.Com/

Graham Cooper

2012-10-11 22:59:00 UTC

Post by Curt Welch

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro
strong AI? =A0Or, any achievements?

Humans possess strong AI. This shows that strong AI can
be instantiated in physical objects: namely, human bodies.
In other words, an assembly of matter can have strong AI.
Any purpose-built assembly of matter can be called a
"machine." Thus, machines can have strong AI. All limitations
of today's AI efforts are trivially explained away by quantitative
arguments: our machines aren't computationally powerful
enough yet, obviously.
Arguments to the contrary amount to claims that there's
magic pixie dust inside our heads, and I will point to such
arguments and laugh. Ha ha!

Deterministic processes could disallow quantum fine tuning.
e.g. a neuron fires 1/1,000,000TH SECOND LATER like a butterfly flaps
it's wings causing large scale chaotic differences in the output after
a short time.

That doesn't seem to be relevant in the case of AI.
The brain is an agent that interacts with an environment that in effect, is
infinitely complex. Most the information that flows into the brain,
through the sensors, is effectively treated as noise from the highly
chaotic universe it interacts with. It flows in the sensors, and makes it
all the way through the system, and flows out to the muscles.
The main role of the brain, is to identify, and extract, the little bits of
data in all that noise, that is useful to the brain, for making action
decisions.
At no point in the all the processing done in the brain, does all the noise
seem to be "filtered out" of the signal. All that noise, as far as can be
seen, permeates every signal in the brain - effecting the firing of every
neuron in the brain.
The brain seems to work, as far as I can tell, by transforming the signals,
through averaging techniques, to extract the signals determined to be
useful, while leaving the rest of the data mixed in randomly, as noise.
If one neuron in the big mix starts to fire randomly, it won't break or
change much of anything, because unlike how our systems work, the brain
expects all the signals to contain lots of noise.
In other words, instead of creating butterfly effects, due to small shifts
of timing of a singe neuron, the brain seems to wire itself to do just the
opposite - to average out all the butterfly effects created by the huge
amounts of noise flowing into the system though the sensors. If anything,
the brain I think is better seen as an anti-chaos machine. It's a chaotic
system, tuned by learning, to make the "good" data, "float to the top", in
a sea of noise (so to say).
The small amounts of noise quantum effects might be adding to the signal
inside the brain, is irrelevant, to the huge amounts of noise, already
present in the signals, as they come from the sensors. It will filter out
the noise from quantum effect, at the same time it's dealing with the noise
from the environment.
If we implement similar processing, in a digital computer, which avoids the
addition of the quantum noise to the digital signal, it won't make a lick
of difference, because the real noise that floods every signal, came from
the environment already.
At least, that is how I see it...

Right, that's the behaviourist psyche model which is compatible with
determinism.

In QM a single delay to 1 neural fire would result in 2 different
future states.

For this to be fed back into the sentience in some way (to make a
better choice) would also require non-local interaction of a macro
(collective better judgement) religious scale, before being considered
as the mechanism for sentience.

A top down effect more in line with lyrics derived from sitting around
a camp fire singing kum ba ya!

(we are participants of the collective consciousness)

Well a 3rd theory could be our brain predicts our own pleasure and
pain with quantum parallel models and chooses the best choice just for
us.

Herc

LudovicoVan

2012-10-12 09:43:22 UTC

Post by LudovicoVan
In fact, have you got any argument pro
strong AI? Or, any achievements?

Humans possess strong AI.

That's indeed a nice, paradoxical way, to state it.

Post by Marshall
This shows that strong AI can
be instantiated in physical objects: namely, human bodies.

Plain non sequitur: you just hand-wave at the fact that "at least" humans
must have it, and from there you don't get anything useful, not even near to
a physical instantiation. And what "follows" is even more ridiculous, to
the point that I won't even waste my time rebutting it.

Post by Marshall
In other words, an assembly of matter can have strong AI.
Any purpose-built assembly of matter can be called a
"machine." Thus, machines can have strong AI. All limitations
of today's AI efforts are trivially explained away by quantitative
arguments: our machines aren't computationally powerful
enough yet, obviously.
Arguments to the contrary amount to claims that there's
magic pixie dust inside our heads, and I will point to such
arguments and laugh. Ha ha!

There are no arguments to the contrary: arguments are just against your
senseless claims.

-LV

Graham Cooper

2012-10-09 23:10:03 UTC

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."

David was quoting a crank. Somebody much like you two.

Quite so, but watch your quotations. Graham did not write the remark
attributed to him.

It's a cute little paradox. It seems that it is true, and that I can't
prove it, although everyone else can.
It's a genuine conundrum, it seems to me. The usual way out of such
problems is, of course, to claim that (at least some) self-referential
sentences are neither true nor false. I don't see any better way out of
this paradox, but neither do I think that it's attractive.

We all know it's true! Do you?
Give your reasoning!
YOU CANT PROVE IT! JESSE F HUGHES CANNOT PROVE ITS TRUE!

Right. It's a natural-language analog to Goedel's incompleteness
theorem, lacking some of the clarity of the original due to the
vagueness of natural language and its semantics, but interesting
nonetheless.
But so what? What point are you trying to make? (He asks, knowing full
likely that he will come to regret it.)

it's a semantic notion that the godel sentence seems to be
unavoidable.

these proofs are 100 years old and use "we can construct a sentence in
any theory.."

no you cannot! very simply NO!

That would be a ZERO-AXIOM or an INCONSISTENT THEORY.

the proof 'works around' that *there is always this formula* error by
justifying it's omission as incomplete.

"this is not in the set of all true sentences"

does not prove the set of all true sentences is incomplete.

Herc

Jesse F. Hughes

2012-10-10 00:59:39 UTC

"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."

David was quoting a crank. Somebody much like you two.

Quite so, but watch your quotations. Graham did not write the remark
attributed to him.

It's a cute little paradox. It seems that it is true, and that I can't
prove it, although everyone else can.
It's a genuine conundrum, it seems to me. The usual way out of such
problems is, of course, to claim that (at least some) self-referential
sentences are neither true nor false. I don't see any better way out of
this paradox, but neither do I think that it's attractive.

We all know it's true! Do you?
Give your reasoning!
YOU CANT PROVE IT! JESSE F HUGHES CANNOT PROVE ITS TRUE!

Right. It's a natural-language analog to Goedel's incompleteness
theorem, lacking some of the clarity of the original due to the
vagueness of natural language and its semantics, but interesting
nonetheless.
But so what? What point are you trying to make? (He asks, knowing full
likely that he will come to regret it.)

it's a semantic notion that the godel sentence seems to be
unavoidable.

But it isn't! There are complete first-order theories. They just tend
to be too simple to be of much interest.

Post by Graham Cooper
these proofs are 100 years old and use "we can construct a sentence in
any theory.."
no you cannot! very simply NO!
That would be a ZERO-AXIOM or an INCONSISTENT THEORY.

Er. No idea where you've gone off to here, but not *every* consistent
theory is incomplete. But every theory that, for instance, can
represent the natural numbers (I'm sure this isn't the technical
terminology, but will do here) is incomplete.

Post by Graham Cooper
the proof 'works around' that *there is always this formula* error by
justifying it's omission as incomplete.
"this is not in the set of all true sentences"
does not prove the set of all true sentences is incomplete.

Whatever, Herc. No idea what you're going on about. Did you go and
refute the incompleteness theorems or something? I don't see how.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"If I'd'a knowed that you'd'a wanted to have went with me, I'd'a seed
that you'd'a gotta get to go." -- A truck driver's favorite love song
(Fernwood 2nite)

Graham Cooper

2012-10-10 01:19:28 UTC