On 8/12/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-11 14:43:31 +0000, olcott said:
I presented several proofs that you did not understand.
It is sufficient to understand that none of what you have presented
is a proof.
A proof is any sequence of steps such that the
conclusion is a necessary consequence of these steps.
That some people think this needs a certain specific
form is their own mistake.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
_DDD()
[00002192] 55 push ebp
[00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d pop ebp
[000021a3] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
(a) HHH executes.
(b) HHH creates a separate process context having
its own stack and set of 16 virtual registers
to simulate DDD using cooperative multi-tasking.
(c) HHH emulates the first four instructions of DDD
in this separate process context.
(d) HHH emulates an instance of itself in this same
process context.
(e) This HHH instance creates another process context
for its own emulated DDD instance.
(f) This HHH instance emulates the first three
instructions of DDD in this separate process
context and sees the call 000015d2 instruction.
It is a verified fact HHH did emulate DDD according
to the semantics of the x86 language. That *is* the
ultimate measure of correct emulation. Disagreeing
with the x86 language is necessarily incorrect.
On 8/12/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-11 14:43:31 +0000, olcott said:
I presented several proofs that you did not understand.
It is sufficient to understand that none of what you have presented
is a proof.
A proof is any sequence of steps such that the
conclusion is a necessary consequence of these steps.
That some people think this needs a certain specific
form is their own mistake.
On 8/13/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-12 15:25:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-11 14:43:31 +0000, olcott said:
I presented several proofs that you did not understand.
It is sufficient to understand that none of what you have presented
is a proof.
A proof is any sequence of steps such that the
conclusion is a necessary consequence of these steps.
Close but not quite. Every step must be a claim. Each claim must be
an axiom or premise or a follow form earlier steps by some inference
rule. The last claim is the conclusion.
That is far too narrow. A proof is any set of
expressions of language that make its conclusion
semantically entailed.
That some people think this needs a certain specific
form is their own mistake.
It must have a form that can be checked without any knowledge other
that the knoledge of logic. If other than ordinary logic is used
then the used logic must be stated and the proof is acceptable only
if the used logic is.
The type of proof that I envision extends the
syllogism to apply to arbitrary expressions of
natural language.
On 8/13/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-12 15:25:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-11 14:43:31 +0000, olcott said:
I presented several proofs that you did not understand.
It is sufficient to understand that none of what you have presented
is a proof.
A proof is any sequence of steps such that the
conclusion is a necessary consequence of these steps.
Close but not quite. Every step must be a claim. Each claim must be
an axiom or premise or a follow form earlier steps by some inference
rule. The last claim is the conclusion.
That is far too narrow. A proof is any set of
expressions of language that make its conclusion
semantically entailed.
The type of proof that I envision extends the
syllogism to apply to arbitrary expressions of
natural language.
On 8/14/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-13 15:04:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-12 15:25:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-11 14:43:31 +0000, olcott said:
I presented several proofs that you did not understand.
It is sufficient to understand that none of what you have presented >>>>>> is a proof.
A proof is any sequence of steps such that the
conclusion is a necessary consequence of these steps.
Close but not quite. Every step must be a claim. Each claim must be
an axiom or premise or a follow form earlier steps by some inference
rule. The last claim is the conclusion.
That is far too narrow. A proof is any set of
expressions of language that make its conclusion
semantically entailed.
No, it is. A proof must achieve its puprpose, which usually is to
convince that the conclusion follows from stated the premises.
Yes.
A semantic entailment is not convincing if the entailment is not
obvious.
None-the-less the huge mistake of modern symbolic
logic is that it divorces semantics from reasoning.
Relevance logic corrects that problem to some degree.
The original syllogism never made that mistake.
The type of proof that I envision extends the
syllogism to apply to arbitrary expressions of
natural language.
Expression of a natural language that do not claim cannot be used as
proof steps. Natural language expression are often ambiguous, shich
makes attempted proofs using them non-proofs.
Natural language expressions can be formalized
as HOL predicates.
On 8/14/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-13 15:04:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-12 15:25:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-11 14:43:31 +0000, olcott said:
I presented several proofs that you did not understand.
It is sufficient to understand that none of what you have presented >>>>>> is a proof.
A proof is any sequence of steps such that the
conclusion is a necessary consequence of these steps.
Close but not quite. Every step must be a claim. Each claim must be
an axiom or premise or a follow form earlier steps by some inference
rule. The last claim is the conclusion.
That is far too narrow. A proof is any set of
expressions of language that make its conclusion
semantically entailed.
No, it is. A proof must achieve its puprpose, which usually is to
convince that the conclusion follows from stated the premises.
Yes.
A semantic entailment is not convincing if the entailment is not
obvious.
None-the-less the huge mistake of modern symbolic
logic is that it divorces semantics from reasoning.
Relevance logic corrects that problem to some degree.
The original syllogism never made that mistake.
The type of proof that I envision extends the
syllogism to apply to arbitrary expressions of
natural language.
Expression of a natural language that do not claim cannot be used as
proof steps. Natural language expression are often ambiguous, shich
makes attempted proofs using them non-proofs.
Natural language expressions can be formalized
as HOL predicates.
On 8/15/2025 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-14 17:12:29 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/14/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-13 15:04:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-12 15:25:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-11 14:43:31 +0000, olcott said:
I presented several proofs that you did not understand.
It is sufficient to understand that none of what you have presented >>>>>>>> is a proof.
A proof is any sequence of steps such that the
conclusion is a necessary consequence of these steps.
Close but not quite. Every step must be a claim. Each claim must be >>>>>> an axiom or premise or a follow form earlier steps by some inference >>>>>> rule. The last claim is the conclusion.
That is far too narrow. A proof is any set of
expressions of language that make its conclusion
semantically entailed.
No, it is. A proof must achieve its puprpose, which usually is to
convince that the conclusion follows from stated the premises.
Yes.
A semantic entailment is not convincing if the entailment is not
obvious.
None-the-less the huge mistake of modern symbolic
logic is that it divorces semantics from reasoning.
Relevance logic corrects that problem to some degree.
The original syllogism never made that mistake.
It is not a mistake. It was found already in antiquity that certain
syntactiaclly identifiable patterns of inference produce inevitably
valid conclusions. There are no known identifiable patterns involving
semantics that produce inevitable valid conclusions.
If you want to know if conclusion C is true
then semantics are required.
The type of proof that I envision extends the
syllogism to apply to arbitrary expressions of
natural language.
Expression of a natural language that do not claim cannot be used as
proof steps. Natural language expression are often ambiguous, shich
makes attempted proofs using them non-proofs.
Natural language expressions can be formalized
as HOL predicates.
Irrelevant as you have never used that posiibility in your "proofs".
On 8/15/2025 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-14 17:12:29 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/14/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-13 15:04:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-12 15:25:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-11 14:43:31 +0000, olcott said:
I presented several proofs that you did not understand.
It is sufficient to understand that none of what you have presented >>>>>>>> is a proof.
A proof is any sequence of steps such that the
conclusion is a necessary consequence of these steps.
Close but not quite. Every step must be a claim. Each claim must be >>>>>> an axiom or premise or a follow form earlier steps by some inference >>>>>> rule. The last claim is the conclusion.
That is far too narrow. A proof is any set of
expressions of language that make its conclusion
semantically entailed.
No, it is. A proof must achieve its puprpose, which usually is to
convince that the conclusion follows from stated the premises.
Yes.
A semantic entailment is not convincing if the entailment is not
obvious.
None-the-less the huge mistake of modern symbolic
logic is that it divorces semantics from reasoning.
Relevance logic corrects that problem to some degree.
The original syllogism never made that mistake.
It is not a mistake. It was found already in antiquity that certain
syntactiaclly identifiable patterns of inference produce inevitably
valid conclusions. There are no known identifiable patterns involving
semantics that produce inevitable valid conclusions.
If you want to know if conclusion C is true
then semantics are required.
On 8/16/2025 2:24 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-15 12:10:04 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/15/2025 3:32 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-14 17:12:29 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/14/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-13 15:04:18 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/13/2025 2:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-12 15:25:42 +0000, olcott said:
On 8/12/2025 3:51 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2025-08-11 14:43:31 +0000, olcott said:
I presented several proofs that you did not understand.
It is sufficient to understand that none of what you have presented >>>>>>>>>> is a proof.
A proof is any sequence of steps such that the
conclusion is a necessary consequence of these steps.
Close but not quite. Every step must be a claim. Each claim must be >>>>>>>> an axiom or premise or a follow form earlier steps by some inference >>>>>>>> rule. The last claim is the conclusion.
That is far too narrow. A proof is any set of
expressions of language that make its conclusion
semantically entailed.
No, it is. A proof must achieve its puprpose, which usually is to
convince that the conclusion follows from stated the premises.
Yes.
A semantic entailment is not convincing if the entailment is not
obvious.
None-the-less the huge mistake of modern symbolic
logic is that it divorces semantics from reasoning.
Relevance logic corrects that problem to some degree.
The original syllogism never made that mistake.
It is not a mistake. It was found already in antiquity that certain
syntactiaclly identifiable patterns of inference produce inevitably
valid conclusions. There are no known identifiable patterns involving
semantics that produce inevitable valid conclusions.
If you want to know if conclusion C is true
then semantics are required.
If in some interpretation all premises are true and the proof is
syntactically valid then the conclusion is true in the same
interpretation.
When we use formalized natural language semantics then there
is only a single interpretation.
Whether the premises are true in the interesting
interpretation is a separate question. Therefore a proof alone
is insufficient for determination of the truth of the conclusion.
*Correcting the error of the halting problem spec*
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 15:51:53 |
| Calls: | 12,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,004 |
| Messages: | 6,518,054 |