On 7/4/2024 5:03 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Prolog logic such that provable means true and false
means unprovable is the key foundation of correct reasoning.
It simply implicitly rejects expressions that would otherwise
result in mathematical incompleteness as not truth bearers
within its system. This is the way that correct reasoning
actually works.
When expressions of language are self-contradictory such
that X and ~X cannot be proven within the system Prolog
rejects X. Mathematical logic would conclude that the
system is incomplete.
When provable means true and false means unprovable
then (Γ ⊢ X) means X is true in Γ.
then (Γ ⊢ ~X) means X is conventional false in Γ.
the (Γ ⊬ X) ∧ (Γ ⊬ ~X) X is not a truth bearer in Γ.
I minimal logic, if you define:
~A := A => f
You can already prove, thats just modus ponens:
A, ~A |- f
Or if you want you can also prove, i.e. rephrase
it, with approproate introducton of a conjunction &
by Curry Howard inference rules for "products":
|- ~(A & ~A)
Thats the law of non-contradiction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction
Its hard wired into minimal logic.
olcott schrieb:
On 7/4/2024 5:03 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Prolog logic such that provable means true and false
means unprovable is the key foundation of correct reasoning.
It simply implicitly rejects expressions that would otherwise
result in mathematical incompleteness as not truth bearers
within its system. This is the way that correct reasoning
actually works.
When expressions of language are self-contradictory such
that X and ~X cannot be proven within the system Prolog
rejects X. Mathematical logic would conclude that the
system is incomplete.
Terminating intuitionistic calculus
Giulio Fellin and Sara Negri
https://philpapers.org/rec/FELATI
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
A few years ago I was impressed by
the output of either Negri or Plato,
or the two together.
Now they are just an annoyance, all
they show is that they are neither talented
nor have sufficient training.
Just have a look at:
Terminating intuitionistic calculus
Giulio Fellin and Sara Negri
https://philpapers.org/rec/FELATI
Beside the too obvious creative idea and motive
behind it, it is most likely complete useless
nonsense. Already this presentation in the
paper shows utter incompetence:
Γ, A → B ⊢ A Γ, A → B, B ⊢ Δ ----------------------------------------
Γ, A → B ⊢ Δ
Everybody in the business knows that the
looping, resulting from the A → B copying,
is a fact. But can be reduced since the
copying on the right hand side is not needed.
Γ, A → B ⊢ A Γ, B ⊢ Δ --------------------------------
Γ, A → B ⊢ Δ
The above variant is enough. Just like Dragalin
presented the calculus. I really wish people
would completely understand these master pieces,
before they even touch multi consequent calculi:
Mathematical Intuitionism: Introduction to Proof Theory
Albert Grigorevich Dragalin - 1988
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0821845209
Contraction-Free Sequent Calculi for Intuitionistic Logic
Roy Dyckhoff - 1992
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~fp//courses/atp/cmuonly/D92.pdf
Whats the deeper semantic (sic!) explanation of the
two calculi GHPC and GCPC? I have a Kripke semantics
explanation in my notes, didn't release it yet.
Have Fun!
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
On 7/4/2024 8:58 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
When red means blue, and yellow means
green, then black is white. Thanks for your hint!
If my Grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OplyHCIBmfE
*Here is the same thing more clearly*
Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} is only made true by a sequence of truth
preserving operations to this {verbal meaning}.
The only way that we know that puppies are not fifteen
story office buildings is that the accurate verbal model
of the actual world tells use so.
olcott schrieb:
When provable means true and false means unprovable
then (Γ ⊢ X) means X is true in Γ.
then (Γ ⊢ ~X) means X is conventional false in Γ.
the (Γ ⊬ X) ∧ (Γ ⊬ ~X) X is not a truth bearer in Γ.
Because of the vagueness of the notions of “constructive
proof”, “constructive operation”, the BHK-interpretation
has never become a versatile technical tool in the way
classical semantics has. Perhaps it is correct to say
that by most people the BHK-interpretation has never been
seen as an intuitionistic counterpart to classical semantics. https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/j50/contribs/troelstra/troelstra.pdf
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
On 7/4/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/4/2024 8:58 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
When red means blue, and yellow means
green, then black is white. Thanks for your hint!
If my Grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OplyHCIBmfE
*Here is the same thing more clearly*
Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} is only made true by a sequence of truth
preserving operations to this {verbal meaning}.
The only way that we know that puppies are not fifteen
story office buildings is that the accurate verbal model
of the actual world tells use so.
But, even if we can't find that sequence of truth perserving
operations, but one exists (which might be infinite) makes the
statement true, but not known.
This is one of your confusions, You confuse a statment being True,
with the statement being KNOWN to be True.
There are a number of great problems and conjectures that seem to be
true, but we can not prove them. They MUST be either True or False, as
by their nature, there is no middle ground (something either exsits or
it doesn't, or the count of something is either finite or infinite).
The ACTUAL TRUTH (or falsehood) of such a statement is thus firmly
established by the system in which the conjeture is embedded, even if
our knowledge of the value of the truth of the statement is not known,
or possible even knowable.
The concept of "incompleteness" for a logical system is a recognition
that the system has grown powerful enough that there exist some truths
in the system that no finite proof of those statements exist, and only
infinite chains of inference in the system can establish it.
Mathematics is one source for these sorts of truths, as the possiblity
of problems having NO number that satisfy them, or an infinite number
that satisfy them show paths that can use in infinite number of steps
to prove them, and might only be provable if some "inductive" shortcut
can be found.
Yet my system screens out pathological expressions that
are incorrectly determined to be incompleteness of the
formal system. When we do that then True(L,x) can be defined
for every expression not requiring an infinite sequence
of steps. True(L,x) or True(L,~x) or not a truth bearer in L.
olcott schrieb:
When provable means true and false means unprovable
then (Γ ⊢ X) means X is true in Γ.
then (Γ ⊢ ~X) means X is conventional false in Γ.
the (Γ ⊬ X) ∧ (Γ ⊬ ~X) X is not a truth bearer in Γ.
On 7/5/2024 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/4/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/4/2024 8:58 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
When red means blue, and yellow means
green, then black is white. Thanks for your hint!
If my Grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OplyHCIBmfE
*Here is the same thing more clearly*
Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} is only made true by a sequence of truth
preserving operations to this {verbal meaning}.
The only way that we know that puppies are not fifteen
story office buildings is that the accurate verbal model
of the actual world tells use so.
But, even if we can't find that sequence of truth perserving
operations, but one exists (which might be infinite) makes the
statement true, but not known.
This is one of your confusions, You confuse a statment being True,
with the statement being KNOWN to be True.
There are a number of great problems and conjectures that seem to be
true, but we can not prove them. They MUST be either True or False,
as by their nature, there is no middle ground (something either
exsits or it doesn't, or the count of something is either finite or
infinite).
The ACTUAL TRUTH (or falsehood) of such a statement is thus firmly
established by the system in which the conjeture is embedded, even
if our knowledge of the value of the truth of the statement is not
known, or possible even knowable.
The concept of "incompleteness" for a logical system is a
recognition that the system has grown powerful enough that there
exist some truths in the system that no finite proof of those
statements exist, and only infinite chains of inference in the
system can establish it.
Mathematics is one source for these sorts of truths, as the
possiblity of problems having NO number that satisfy them, or an
infinite number that satisfy them show paths that can use in
infinite number of steps to prove them, and might only be provable
if some "inductive" shortcut can be found.
Yet my system screens out pathological expressions that
are incorrectly determined to be incompleteness of the
formal system. When we do that then True(L,x) can be defined
for every expression not requiring an infinite sequence
of steps. True(L,x) or True(L,~x) or not a truth bearer in L.
No, it dies in self-inconsistency.
Note "Every expression BUT ..." isn't "Every expresion ."
Every expression such that neither X nor ~X is provable in L
is simply not a truth bearer in L. This does correctly reject self-contradictory expressions that wold otherwise be interpreted
as the incompleteness of L.
This works correctly for every element of the accurate verbal
model of the actual world. Since we can see that things like
the Goldbach conjecture can be proven in an infinite sequence
then an algorithm can see this too. For everything else it is
an infallibly correct system of reasoning.
So, your logic only works in systems small enough to be somewhat akin
to toys. Those that are limited enough not to be able to cause the
problems, which means it excludes most systems that support math.
olcott schrieb:
When provable means true and false means unprovable
then (Γ ⊢ X) means X is true in Γ.
then (Γ ⊢ ~X) means X is conventional false in Γ.
the (Γ ⊬ X) ∧ (Γ ⊬ ~X) X is not a truth bearer in Γ.
On 7/5/2024 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/4/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/4/2024 8:58 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
When red means blue, and yellow means
green, then black is white. Thanks for your hint!
If my Grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OplyHCIBmfE
*Here is the same thing more clearly*
Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} is only made true by a sequence of truth
preserving operations to this {verbal meaning}.
The only way that we know that puppies are not fifteen
story office buildings is that the accurate verbal model
of the actual world tells use so.
But, even if we can't find that sequence of truth perserving
operations, but one exists (which might be infinite) makes the
statement true, but not known.
This is one of your confusions, You confuse a statment being True,
with the statement being KNOWN to be True.
There are a number of great problems and conjectures that seem to be
true, but we can not prove them. They MUST be either True or False,
as by their nature, there is no middle ground (something either
exsits or it doesn't, or the count of something is either finite or
infinite).
The ACTUAL TRUTH (or falsehood) of such a statement is thus firmly
established by the system in which the conjeture is embedded, even
if our knowledge of the value of the truth of the statement is not
known, or possible even knowable.
The concept of "incompleteness" for a logical system is a
recognition that the system has grown powerful enough that there
exist some truths in the system that no finite proof of those
statements exist, and only infinite chains of inference in the
system can establish it.
Mathematics is one source for these sorts of truths, as the
possiblity of problems having NO number that satisfy them, or an
infinite number that satisfy them show paths that can use in
infinite number of steps to prove them, and might only be provable
if some "inductive" shortcut can be found.
Yet my system screens out pathological expressions that
are incorrectly determined to be incompleteness of the
formal system. When we do that then True(L,x) can be defined
for every expression not requiring an infinite sequence
of steps. True(L,x) or True(L,~x) or not a truth bearer in L.
No, it dies in self-inconsistency.
Note "Every expression BUT ..." isn't "Every expresion ."
Every expression such that neither X nor ~X is provable in L
is simply not a truth bearer in L. This does correctly reject self-contradictory expressions that wold otherwise be interpreted
as the incompleteness of L.
This works correctly for every element of the accurate verbal
model of the actual world. Since we can see that things like
the Goldbach conjecture can be proven *OR REFUTED* in an infinite
sequence then an algorithm can see this too. For everything
else it is an infallibly correct system of reasoning.
So, your logic only works in systems small enough to be somewhat akin
to toys. Those that are limited enough not to be able to cause the
problems, which means it excludes most systems that support math.
olcott schrieb:
When provable means true and false means unprovable
then (Γ ⊢ X) means X is true in Γ.
then (Γ ⊢ ~X) means X is conventional false in Γ.
the (Γ ⊬ X) ∧ (Γ ⊬ ~X) X is not a truth bearer in Γ.
On 7/5/2024 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/5/2024 11:23 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/24 11:19 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/4/2024 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/4/24 10:38 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/4/2024 8:58 PM, Mild Shock wrote:
When red means blue, and yellow means
green, then black is white. Thanks for your hint!
If my Grandmother had wheels she would have been a bike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OplyHCIBmfE
*Here is the same thing more clearly*
Every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} is only made true by a sequence of truth
preserving operations to this {verbal meaning}.
The only way that we know that puppies are not fifteen
story office buildings is that the accurate verbal model
of the actual world tells use so.
But, even if we can't find that sequence of truth perserving
operations, but one exists (which might be infinite) makes the
statement true, but not known.
This is one of your confusions, You confuse a statment being True, >>>>>> with the statement being KNOWN to be True.
There are a number of great problems and conjectures that seem to
be true, but we can not prove them. They MUST be either True or
False, as by their nature, there is no middle ground (something
either exsits or it doesn't, or the count of something is either
finite or infinite).
The ACTUAL TRUTH (or falsehood) of such a statement is thus
firmly established by the system in which the conjeture is
embedded, even if our knowledge of the value of the truth of the
statement is not known, or possible even knowable.
The concept of "incompleteness" for a logical system is a
recognition that the system has grown powerful enough that there
exist some truths in the system that no finite proof of those
statements exist, and only infinite chains of inference in the
system can establish it.
Mathematics is one source for these sorts of truths, as the
possiblity of problems having NO number that satisfy them, or an
infinite number that satisfy them show paths that can use in
infinite number of steps to prove them, and might only be provable >>>>>> if some "inductive" shortcut can be found.
Yet my system screens out pathological expressions that
are incorrectly determined to be incompleteness of the
formal system. When we do that then True(L,x) can be defined
for every expression not requiring an infinite sequence
of steps. True(L,x) or True(L,~x) or not a truth bearer in L.
No, it dies in self-inconsistency.
Note "Every expression BUT ..." isn't "Every expresion ."
Every expression such that neither X nor ~X is provable in L
is simply not a truth bearer in L. This does correctly reject
self-contradictory expressions that wold otherwise be interpreted
as the incompleteness of L.
FALSE STATEMENT.
Can't be false it is stipulated.
Some statements are true due to an infinite number of steps to ther
truth-makers of the system.
Already covered that.
You will lead your logic system into contradictions by your definition
(or you just need to treat it as a worthless phrase that doesn't
actually tell you anything, particually what you call
non-truth-bearers, which might actuall be statement that are true or
false).
Not at all. Such a system does detect and reject self-contradictory expressions thus does not use this as any basis for incompleteness.
This works correctly for every element of the accurate verbal
model of the actual world. Since we can see that things like
the Goldbach conjecture can be proven *OR REFUTED* in an infinite
sequence then an algorithm can see this too. For everything
else it is an infallibly correct system of reasoning.
So, you ADMIT that you definition doesn't work for some statements,
and thus is not correct.
It detects expressions that require infinite steps as out
of scope and correctly determines all of the rest.
Note, the algorithm can not tell wether the statement like to GoldbackNot at all. Because it is dead obvious to humans that Goldbach
conjecture is true or not, or even if it takes an infinite number of
steps to come to that answer. Thus, you statement is just a FALSEHOOD.
can be proved or refuted in an infinite number of steps an
algorithm can see this too.
You just don't understand logic well enough to understand that can't
have definitions that just don't work as the basis of a system.
By your definition, the Goldbach conjecture must currently be consider
a non-truth-bearer, but we KNOW that it must be either true or false, we
It would be construed as out-of-scope.
Whether or not there was evidence of:
(a) Election fraud that could have possibly changed
the outcome of the 2020 presidential election or
(b) Very harmful climate change caused by humans
would be in scope.
just don't know which, so you definition of a truth-bearer is just a lie.
What you are defining are KNOWLEDGE bearers, statements that there
truth can be known.
The key problem that it solves is that it makes True(L,x)
computable for all of the most important things that really
matter.
You are essentially saying that
A cure for cancer is totally useless because it only cures
99.99% of cancers.
But we can't even know if the Goldbach conjecture is a
knowledge-bearer or not. If it turns out to be false, then that fact
is knowable, but not yet known (since showing the number, as a simple
finite proof that no pair of primes below it sum to it make it prove
false), but if it is true, there might be a proof, or there might not be.
So even Knowledge-Bearers as a concept is has limited use. Knowledge,
that which we currently know, is a valid concept, and one that admits
things can be added to it.
And Truth-Bearers, with the allowance of infinite chains to establish
the truth (or falseness) of the statement can be useful, though we do
need to admit we don't know, and perhaps CAN'T know that truth value,
and need to allow for some statements that we don't yet have the
ability to know if they are truth-bearers or not.
But your definition of truth-bearers is just worthless for most logic
systems, claiming to be about truth but actually being about knowledge
isn't a good definition, and just shows your fundamental
misunderstanding about what is actually truth and how it differs from
knowledge.
So, your logic only works in systems small enough to be somewhat
akin to toys. Those that are limited enough not to be able to cause
the problems, which means it excludes most systems that support math.
olcott schrieb:
When provable means true and false means unprovable
then (Γ ⊢ X) means X is true in Γ.
then (Γ ⊢ ~X) means X is conventional false in Γ.
the (Γ ⊬ X) ∧ (Γ ⊬ ~X) X is not a truth bearer in Γ.
On 7/5/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/5/2024 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
Every expression such that neither X nor ~X is provable in L
is simply not a truth bearer in L. This does correctly reject
self-contradictory expressions that wold otherwise be interpreted
as the incompleteness of L.
FALSE STATEMENT.
Can't be false it is stipulated.
Can't stipulate that something is true.
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} must have a connection by truth preserving
operations to its {verbal meaning} is a tautology.
Sometimes in cases (having little actual consequence) this
may require an infinite sequence of truth preserving operations.
Also, stipulating a definition contrary to the system puts you out of
the system.
Some statements are true due to an infinite number of steps to ther
truth-makers of the system.
Already covered that.
Nope. That is just stipulating that you system is contradictory.
You will lead your logic system into contradictions by your
definition (or you just need to treat it as a worthless phrase that
doesn't actually tell you anything, particually what you call
non-truth-bearers, which might actuall be statement that are true or
false).
Not at all. Such a system does detect and reject self-contradictory
expressions thus does not use this as any basis for incompleteness.
Nope, it just puts your logic outside of most logic systems, and
unable to hamdle most of the problems people really care about.
Right people really care about the Goldbach conjecture
infinite more than avoiding Fascism or the death of
the planet.
This works correctly for every element of the accurate verbal
model of the actual world. Since we can see that things like
the Goldbach conjecture can be proven *OR REFUTED* in an infinite
sequence then an algorithm can see this too. For everything
else it is an infallibly correct system of reasoning.
So, you ADMIT that you definition doesn't work for some statements,
and thus is not correct.
It detects expressions that require infinite steps as out
of scope and correctly determines all of the rest.
Nope, it defines your system as self-contradictory,
That is not even what those words mean.
as things like tht GoldBach conjecture are defined as BOTHThat my system handles all knowledge that can be expressed
non-truth-bearers, and as truth-bearers.
That seems to be the lie for your logic, that you just allow yourself
to be wrong at times, which makes your logic worthless.
Note, the algorithm can not tell wether the statement like toNot at all. Because it is dead obvious to humans that Goldbach
Goldback conjecture is true or not, or even if it takes an infinite
number of steps to come to that answer. Thus, you statement is just
a FALSEHOOD.
can be proved or refuted in an infinite number of steps an
algorithm can see this too.
But it might not need an infinite number of steps to refute it.
using language is enough.
And that second definition contradicts your first, as the firstThat is not even what those words mean.
defines Goldmach (if true) to be a non-truth-bearer, while the second
tries to contradict that to say it is.
You can't do that in two different statements.
You just don't understand logic well enough to understand that can't
have definitions that just don't work as the basis of a system.
By your definition, the Goldbach conjecture must currently be
consider a non-truth-bearer, but we KNOW that it must be either true
or false, we
It would be construed as out-of-scope.
Whether or not there was evidence of:
(a) Election fraud that could have possibly changed
the outcome of the 2020 presidential election or
(b) Very harmful climate change caused by humans
would be in scope.
Since both of those statements are based on EMPERICAL evidence, they
are outside the scope of analytical logic.
An accurate model of the actual world already has
them encoded in language.
just don't know which, so you definition of a truth-bearer is just a
lie.
What you are defining are KNOWLEDGE bearers, statements that there
truth can be known.
The key problem that it solves is that it makes True(L,x)
computable for all of the most important things that really
matter.
Nope, becuase you made you system inconsistent by defining infinitly
established truths to be both non-truth-bearers and truth-bearers.
out-of-scope is not at all the same thing as inconsistent.
It can handle ALL knowledge that can be expressed using language.
You are essentially saying that
A cure for cancer is totally useless because it only cures
99.99% of cancers.
Nope, but it can't be said to be a cure for ALL cancers.
That is where you run into the problem, trying to say that things thatThe entire set of knowledge that can be expressed using language.
must be correct for ALL inputs, are allowed to only be correct for
many inputs.
On 7/5/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:I am fallible so the first time that I say something
On 7/5/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/5/2024 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
Every expression such that neither X nor ~X is provable in L
is simply not a truth bearer in L. This does correctly reject
self-contradictory expressions that wold otherwise be interpreted >>>>>>> as the incompleteness of L.
FALSE STATEMENT.
Can't be false it is stipulated.
Can't stipulate that something is true.
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} must have a connection by truth preserving
operations to its {verbal meaning} is a tautology.
But that isn't what you said above. You keep on getting your lies
mixed up.
it will probably not be infallible.
True on the basis of its verbal meaning isn't a thing in formalSe that I have to update it again because I am fallible.
system, so not a Tautology, unless you mean by "verbal meaning" the
meaning assigned to the term in the system.
Did you know that the Gnostic Demiurge concept of God is fallible?
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis
of its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection
by truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using
language} is a tautology.
This refutes Tarski undefinability for the entire set of
knowledge that can be expressed using language.
It sure as Hell does not get confused by any pathological
expressions that refer to themselves such as the key
expression that attempt to refute truthmaker maximalism:
This sentence has no truthmaker
The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
On 7/5/2024 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 6:33 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/5/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 5:42 PM, olcott wrote:I am fallible so the first time that I say something
On 7/5/2024 4:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 4:12 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/5/2024 2:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
Every expression such that neither X nor ~X is provable in L >>>>>>>>> is simply not a truth bearer in L. This does correctly reject >>>>>>>>> self-contradictory expressions that wold otherwise be interpreted >>>>>>>>> as the incompleteness of L.
FALSE STATEMENT.
Can't be false it is stipulated.
Can't stipulate that something is true.
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its verbal meaning} must have a connection by truth preserving
operations to its {verbal meaning} is a tautology.
But that isn't what you said above. You keep on getting your lies
mixed up.
it will probably not be infallible.
Then ADMIT an error rather then say someone else is wrong because you
didn't say what you meant.
It takes many revisions to precisely state my intuitions.
Every one is less than perfect. They keep getting better.
It is a notion of God as an ordinary human that also was the
True on the basis of its verbal meaning isn't a thing in formalSe that I have to update it again because I am fallible.
system, so not a Tautology, unless you mean by "verbal meaning" the
meaning assigned to the term in the system.
Did you know that the Gnostic Demiurge concept of God is fallible?
And that Gnosticism is just a heresy that is inconsistent, and thus
not true.
sole creator. Ultimately only an omniscient being could make
the 100% reliable call on this.
You simply did not pay close enough attention to what I actually said.
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis
of its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection
by truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using
language} is a tautology.
No, only if you restrict the language it can use. For instance, On the
basis of natural language Cats are Cats is a statement that is true by
the meaning of the words, as it Blurgs are Blurgs. But in a system
that doesn't define Cats, or Blurgs (like basic mathematics) there is
not possible connection by truth preserving operations to the any
meaning since it uses undefined terms in the system.
Try reading again fifteen more times.
You keep om forgetting that formal systems are not defined in terms of
natural language, so you can't use natural language definition to work
with them.
I didn't forget. Later on I fill in more details. When I
give all of the details all at once people are overwhelmed.
This refutes Tarski undefinability for the entire set of
knowledge that can be expressed using language.
But that isn't what Tarski was talking about.
After all, you STILL can't give a consitant value for the expression
True(L, x) for x defined in L as ~True(L,x).
The whole purpose of my two decades of primary research on this
it to reject pathological expressions types as not truth bearers.
The expression that you provided was not even pathological.
~True(English, "cats are dogs") is true.
Clearly our language allows us to define an x that way, and whateverThe primary purpose of my two decades worth of primary research
value True(L,x) is defined (either True or False) it becomes a
contradiction.
is to recognize and reject pathological expressions.
There is no sequence of truth preserving operations
It sure as Hell does not get confused by any pathological
expressions that refer to themselves such as the key
expression that attempt to refute truthmaker maximalism:
This sentence has no truthmaker
And why not? what is the value of True(L,x) from above?
that can reach the Liar Paradox or its negation.
The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
and can't be an completely accurate model of the actual world, as we
don't know enough about it.
It can be sufficiently complete have all the details that
it needs and no more.
On 7/6/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/5/2024 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Then ADMIT an error rather then say someone else is wrong because
you didn't say what you meant.
It takes many revisions to precisely state my intuitions.
Every one is less than perfect. They keep getting better.
But, you refuse to acknoledge that you previous statements were
errors, but accuse people of lying because they took you at your words.
It is/was incorrect for me to call people liars when
they disputed the exact meaning of my prior less than
accurate words and they only disputed this on the basis
of the less than accuracy.
That is not what is happening on the other set of threads.
It is a notion of God as an ordinary human that also was the
True on the basis of its verbal meaning isn't a thing in formalSe that I have to update it again because I am fallible.
system, so not a Tautology, unless you mean by "verbal meaning"
the meaning assigned to the term in the system.
Did you know that the Gnostic Demiurge concept of God is fallible?
And that Gnosticism is just a heresy that is inconsistent, and thus
not true.
sole creator. Ultimately only an omniscient being could make
the 100% reliable call on this.
But such a God could not do what he did.
Again my less than accurate words.
A being that has no more knowledge than a human creates
the universe by first creating/discovering light from
what is otherwise silences and darkness.
Complete darkness so very gradually becomes pure white
light that it takes a long long time for this being to
notice the change.
Later on this being imagines a flat surface that is
perpendicular to their own frame-of-reference and
decides to push the top of this flat surface backwards
so that it forms a 45 degree angle. This is how the
third dimension to space could have been created.
A very long time later this being decides that they
want to forget that they did this and they condition
themselves to get out of the habit of using their power.
The essence of all of this is explained in the great book. https://www.amazon.com/What-Are-You-Doing-Universe/dp/0878770658
The original version of this book tells the reader that they
themselves are the one and only creator of the universe.
The library of congress classifies this book as possible truth
Philosophical Anthropology Miscellanea
Later versions of this book have an identical body yet come with
the caveat this this is a possible truth not a declared fact.
You simply did not pay close enough attention to what I actually said.
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis
of its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection
by truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using
language} is a tautology.
No, only if you restrict the language it can use. For instance, On
the basis of natural language Cats are Cats is a statement that is
true by the meaning of the words, as it Blurgs are Blurgs. But in a
system that doesn't define Cats, or Blurgs (like basic mathematics)
there is not possible connection by truth preserving operations to
the any meaning since it uses undefined terms in the system.
Try reading again fifteen more times.
But you just admitted that your words were incorrect.
They problem is when you base your arguement on incorrect definitions,
it can't be a valid and sound argument.
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
On 7/6/2024 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:I am unconvinced that I ever did this.
On 7/6/2024 9:53 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/5/24 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/5/2024 6:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
Then ADMIT an error rather then say someone else is wrong because
you didn't say what you meant.
It takes many revisions to precisely state my intuitions.
Every one is less than perfect. They keep getting better.
But, you refuse to acknoledge that you previous statements were
errors, but accuse people of lying because they took you at your words. >>>>
It is/was incorrect for me to call people liars when
they disputed the exact meaning of my prior less than
accurate words and they only disputed this on the basis
of the less than accuracy.
Then why do you continue to do so?
The mereAgain the key issue is that someone that is essentially
That is not what is happening on the other set of threads.
It is a notion of God as an ordinary human that also was theAnd that Gnosticism is just a heresy that is inconsistent, and
True on the basis of its verbal meaning isn't a thing in formal >>>>>>>> system, so not a Tautology, unless you mean by "verbal meaning" >>>>>>>> the meaning assigned to the term in the system.Se that I have to update it again because I am fallible.
Did you know that the Gnostic Demiurge concept of God is fallible? >>>>>>
thus not true.
sole creator. Ultimately only an omniscient being could make
the 100% reliable call on this.
But such a God could not do what he did.
Again my less than accurate words.
A being that has no more knowledge than a human creates
the universe by first creating/discovering light from
what is otherwise silences and darkness.
But is that probable, or even possible.
a fallible human does this.
That is one of your failings, you imgaine something that maybe jusThe only actual impossibilities are logical impossibilities.
tmight be possible, (even if it isn't) and assume it is.
The strangest logically possible thing is that a real live
two dimensional Bugs Bunny knocks on your door.
Complete darkness so very gradually becomes pure white
light that it takes a long long time for this being to
notice the change.
Later on this being imagines a flat surface that is
perpendicular to their own frame-of-reference and
decides to push the top of this flat surface backwards
so that it forms a 45 degree angle. This is how the
third dimension to space could have been created.
A very long time later this being decides that they
want to forget that they did this and they condition
themselves to get out of the habit of using their power.
The essence of all of this is explained in the great book.
https://www.amazon.com/What-Are-You-Doing-Universe/dp/0878770658
The original version of this book tells the reader that they
themselves are the one and only creator of the universe.
The library of congress classifies this book as possible truth
Philosophical Anthropology Miscellanea
Later versions of this book have an identical body yet come with
the caveat this this is a possible truth not a declared fact.
And by promoting such ideas, you show that you do not believe in the
actual all powerful God that did create the univesre, and thus whe it
I have long since fully understood that beliefs and
disbelief are lies that we tell ourselves. They are
lies because they close the mind to additional information.
comes time for the judgement of your life, you will be found lackingFaith is not the same thing as the mere presumption that
in the faith needed to redeam you from your failings, and thus spend
your eternity seperated from him, in the place, best described in
human terms, as the eternal fires of Hell.
beliefs often are. Faith is the substance of things hoped for
not the presumption that we are correct thus others are wrong.
If you are not convinced, which is the more likely origin of theI am testing the hypothesis that I was deceived by Satan.
world, and which decision has the more impact on what you should do.
Every translation of the bible agrees that God himself would
be this deceiver.
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to
believe what is false, https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Thessalonians%202:11
I have ALWAYS only wanted what-ever the truth turns out to be
even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
*THE TRUTH OF THIS SEEMS INFALLIBLY CORRECT*
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
*Meaning that all of math and logic that disagrees are WRONG*
On 7/6/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
You have ignored my reference to a book that was classified
by the Library of Congress as possibly true that says anyone
reading this book *is* the one and only creator of the universe.
The Library of Congress makes no such determinations. The authors
provide the classifications.
What is your source of this, I found a source that seem to conflict. https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/lcc/PDFs%20of%20slides/12-3%20handout.pdf
The fact that such a statement is a logical impossiblity if one
accepts that there is a shared reality (as that realith existed before
the reader did) makes it absurd.
Yes and when one accept that numbers do not exist it
logically follows that there is no such thing as arithmetic.
*Anyone seeking the truth cannot simply ignore that*
You have not seen this actual book, yet I have several copies.
You would, and it fits in your pattern of logic.
comes time for the judgement of your life, you will be foundFaith is not the same thing as the mere presumption that
lacking in the faith needed to redeam you from your failings, and
thus spend your eternity seperated from him, in the place, best
described in human terms, as the eternal fires of Hell.
beliefs often are. Faith is the substance of things hoped for
not the presumption that we are correct thus others are wrong.
Right, but since you do not have a faith in the actual creator of
the universe, you are unable to avail yourself of his grace to let
you have the relationship you need with him, so will forever be
outside of him.
You may not belevie that now, but if you honestly look at the
outcome of your beliefs and your life, you should be able to see
that they don't have any better foundation. I KNOW that what I
believe is true, because I have put it to the test, and he has
proven himself faithful.
If you are not convinced, which is the more likely origin of theI am testing the hypothesis that I was deceived by Satan.
world, and which decision has the more impact on what you should do. >>>>>>
Every translation of the bible agrees that God himself would
be this deceiver.
Nope.
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to
believe what is false,
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Thessalonians%202:11
Read the context. Man because of our sin, can not directly see God
at work.
That the bible says God himself would send a delusion cannot
possibly have any context where God himself is not a deceiver.
That every translation agrees is strong evidence that it is not
a translation error.
But if you look at the context, the delusion is the delusion created
by ones own denial of the law of God, so he sends them what they
wanted, by their own choice, so God is not "a deceiver" but only
allows people who have chosen to be decieved to be deceived.
He has abolished the law with its commandments and
ordinances, so that he might create in himself one
new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A15&version=NRSVA
My system does not get stuck like the Tarski system.
I have ALWAYS only wanted what-ever the truth turns out to be
even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
But you ignore that truth when it shows itself to you.
*THE TRUTH OF THIS SEEMS INFALLIBLY CORRECT*
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language} >>>>> is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
*Meaning that all of math and logic that disagrees are WRONG*
Nope, that is just your own deception. The human use of language
just isn't that good and has flaws in it.
As you already know there cannot possibly be any sequence
of truth preserving operations to LP or ~LP proves that
my system overcomes Tarski's proof.
So, what is the value of True(L, x) where x in L is the statement
~True(L,x)
This is simply the Prolog model where true
means provable and false means not provable.
Conventional false means ~x is provable.
True(L,x) only when x is true, otherwise false.
True(L,~x) only when ~x is true, otherwise false.
x = ~True(L, x)
True(L, x) is false.
True(L, ~x) is false.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
On 7/6/2024 2:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 2:37 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 1:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
The essence of all of this is explained in the great book.
https://www.amazon.com/What-Are-You-Doing-Universe/dp/0878770658
The original version of this book tells the reader that they
themselves are the one and only creator of the universe.
The library of congress classifies this book as possible truth
Philosophical Anthropology Miscellanea
Later versions of this book have an identical body yet come with
the caveat this this is a possible truth not a declared fact.
And by promoting such ideas, you show that you do not believe in the
actual all powerful God that did create the univesre, and thus whe it
I have long since fully understood that beliefs and
disbelief are lies that we tell ourselves. They are
lies because they close the mind to additional information.
No, you have fallen for the lie that real truth doesn't exist.
You have ignored my reference to a book that was classified
by the Library of Congress as possibly true that says anyone
reading this book *is* the one and only creator of the universe.
*Anyone seeking the truth cannot simply ignore that*
You have not seen this actual book, yet I have several copies.
comes time for the judgement of your life, you will be found lackingFaith is not the same thing as the mere presumption that
in the faith needed to redeam you from your failings, and thus spend
your eternity seperated from him, in the place, best described in
human terms, as the eternal fires of Hell.
beliefs often are. Faith is the substance of things hoped for
not the presumption that we are correct thus others are wrong.
Right, but since you do not have a faith in the actual creator of the
universe, you are unable to avail yourself of his grace to let you
have the relationship you need with him, so will forever be outside of
him.
You may not belevie that now, but if you honestly look at the outcome
of your beliefs and your life, you should be able to see that they
don't have any better foundation. I KNOW that what I believe is true,
because I have put it to the test, and he has proven himself faithful.
If you are not convinced, which is the more likely origin of theI am testing the hypothesis that I was deceived by Satan.
world, and which decision has the more impact on what you should do.
Every translation of the bible agrees that God himself would
be this deceiver.
Nope.
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to
believe what is false,
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Thessalonians%202:11
Read the context. Man because of our sin, can not directly see God at
work.
That the bible says God himself would send a delusion cannot
possibly have any context where God himself is not a deceiver.
That every translation agrees is strong evidence that it is not
a translation error.
My system does not get stuck like the Tarski system.
I have ALWAYS only wanted what-ever the truth turns out to be
even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
But you ignore that truth when it shows itself to you.
*THE TRUTH OF THIS SEEMS INFALLIBLY CORRECT*
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
*Meaning that all of math and logic that disagrees are WRONG*
Nope, that is just your own deception. The human use of language just
isn't that good and has flaws in it.
As you already know there cannot possibly be any sequence
of truth preserving operations to LP or ~LP proves that
my system overcomes Tarski's proof.
That you simply dismiss this out-of-hand when you already
know it is true cannot be construed as anything but a lie.
And, you presume that an "accurate model of the actual world" exists
(or even can exist). The fundamental problem is that we only know of
the world though IMPERFECT observations, and thus can only make an
imperfect model of the world.
We perfectly know that kittens are not 15 story office buildings.
It seems that we perfectly know that no evidence has ever been
presented that election fraud changed the outcome of the 2020
presidential election.
Yes, you can do a lot through a known imperfect model, but you need toMy model is a semantic tautology thus cannot possibly be erroneous.
know the imperfections in it to understand its limits.
If some people believe that kittens are 15 story office buildings
this simply makes them WRONG.
Your logic starts by requiring begining with a perfect knowledge of
what is, which is impossible, and is the sort of error you keep on
making, of assuming something as "must be true" when it is just
impossible.
The main thing that my model very clearly does is toss out
pathological expressions on their ass. This corrects the error
of mathematical incompleteness.
On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 4:48 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 3:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote:So, what page takes about the classificaiton of the type of material.
On 7/6/24 3:35 PM, olcott wrote:
You have ignored my reference to a book that was classified
by the Library of Congress as possibly true that says anyone
reading this book *is* the one and only creator of the universe.
The Library of Congress makes no such determinations. The authors
provide the classifications.
What is your source of this, I found a source that seem to conflict.
https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/lcc/PDFs%20of%20slides/12-3%20handout.pdf >>
That who document is about assigning "Literary Author Numbers"
The fact that such a statement is a logical impossiblity if one
accepts that there is a shared reality (as that realith existed
before the reader did) makes it absurd.
Yes and when one accept that numbers do not exist it
logically follows that there is no such thing as arithmetic.
So, you really think that is a correct model of reality?
I hypothesize possibilities. You pick one guess that you are
right and close your mind.
Pity you.Until Christ died on the cross.
But From Matthew 5:17-18 not one piece of the law has passed away.
*Anyone seeking the truth cannot simply ignore that*
You have not seen this actual book, yet I have several copies.
You would, and it fits in your pattern of logic.
comes time for the judgement of your life, you will be foundFaith is not the same thing as the mere presumption that
lacking in the faith needed to redeam you from your failings,
and thus spend your eternity seperated from him, in the place, >>>>>>>> best described in human terms, as the eternal fires of Hell.
beliefs often are. Faith is the substance of things hoped for
not the presumption that we are correct thus others are wrong.
Right, but since you do not have a faith in the actual creator of
the universe, you are unable to avail yourself of his grace to let >>>>>> you have the relationship you need with him, so will forever be
outside of him.
You may not belevie that now, but if you honestly look at the
outcome of your beliefs and your life, you should be able to see
that they don't have any better foundation. I KNOW that what I
believe is true, because I have put it to the test, and he has
proven himself faithful.
If you are not convinced, which is the more likely origin of the >>>>>>>> world, and which decision has the more impact on what you should >>>>>>>> do.I am testing the hypothesis that I was deceived by Satan.
Every translation of the bible agrees that God himself would
be this deceiver.
Nope.
For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them >>>>>>> to believe what is false,
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/2%20Thessalonians%202:11
Read the context. Man because of our sin, can not directly see God >>>>>> at work.
That the bible says God himself would send a delusion cannot
possibly have any context where God himself is not a deceiver.
That every translation agrees is strong evidence that it is not
a translation error.
But if you look at the context, the delusion is the delusion created
by ones own denial of the law of God, so he sends them what they
wanted, by their own choice, so God is not "a deceiver" but only
allows people who have chosen to be decieved to be deceived.
He has abolished the law with its commandments and
ordinances, so that he might create in himself one
new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+2%3A15&version=NRSVA >>
So, only those that have been made "new" have had that law abolished.
Remember, you are quoting a message to those that were saved, to those
that still were lost.
My system does not get stuck like the Tarski system.
I have ALWAYS only wanted what-ever the truth turns out to be
even if everyone in the universe disagrees.
But you ignore that truth when it shows itself to you.
*THE TRUTH OF THIS SEEMS INFALLIBLY CORRECT*
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using
language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed >>>>>>> using formal language and formalized natural language.
*Meaning that all of math and logic that disagrees are WRONG*
Nope, that is just your own deception. The human use of language
just isn't that good and has flaws in it.
As you already know there cannot possibly be any sequence
of truth preserving operations to LP or ~LP proves that
my system overcomes Tarski's proof.
So, what is the value of True(L, x) where x in L is the statement
~True(L,x)
This is simply the Prolog model where true
means provable and false means not provable.
Conventional false means ~x is provable.
Which only handles the most simple of logic, which is still your failing.
The essential architecture where true means provable
and false means unprovable can be applied to a system
that simultaneously has an unlimited orders of logic.
0,1,2,...N all at the same time.
Your logic only works in system that simple.
True(L,x) only when x is true, otherwise false.
True(L,~x) only when ~x is true, otherwise false.
Bu
x = ~True(L, x)
True(L, x) is false.
True(L, ~x) is false.
But if True(L, x) is false
then x = ~True(L, x) is true.
Try rereading what I said over and over 25 times to
see your mistake.
so, you just asserted that True(L, true) is false.No.
x = True(L, x)
True(L, x) is false meaning that it is not true, not
meaning that ~x is true.
The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for theNot at all. My logic is simply smart enough to reject
necessaery references in it.
non-truth-bearers AKA expressions that are not valid
propositions. It does not stupidly falsely assume that
every expression is a valid proposition.\
I.e, it is too primative.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
On 7/6/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for theNot at all. My logic is simply smart enough to reject
necessaery references in it.
non-truth-bearers AKA expressions that are not valid
propositions. It does not stupidly falsely assume that
every expression is a valid proposition.\
Logic isn't "Smart", it follows its rules.
Your rules are just inconsistent.
When-so-ever true means provable and false means not provable
the meaning of these words proves that such a system cannot
get stuck in pathological expressions.
LP := ~True(LP) has a cycle in the directed
graph of the elements of the expression related
to each other that Prolog and MTT detects.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
On 7/6/2024 6:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for theNot at all. My logic is simply smart enough to reject
necessaery references in it.
non-truth-bearers AKA expressions that are not valid
propositions. It does not stupidly falsely assume that
every expression is a valid proposition.\
Logic isn't "Smart", it follows its rules.
Your rules are just inconsistent.
When-so-ever true means provable and false means not provable
the meaning of these words proves that such a system cannot
get stuck in pathological expressions.
And such a definition requires the system to be keep simple or it
becomes inconsistant.
LP := ~True(LP) has a cycle in the directed
graph of the elements of the expression related
to each other that Prolog and MTT detects.
So, what value does True(LP) return?
True(L,x) means x is true.
~True(L,x) means x is untrue which includes false and not a proposition.
True(L,~x) means x is false.
~True(L,~x) means x is unfalse which includes true and not a proposition.
True(L,LP) is false and True(L,~LP) is false which means LP
is not a proposition.
If it returns your error below, it fails to meet the requirements, as
"nonsense" statement must return false.
But then, not that false is true, so the predicate is in its problem.
THe only answers are:
1) Not have a True Predicate.
2) Not allow that form of reference, even indirectly, which limits the
power of the logic system.
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.
On 7/6/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:*That is not the way it works in my system or Prolog*
On 7/6/2024 6:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for theNot at all. My logic is simply smart enough to reject
necessaery references in it.
non-truth-bearers AKA expressions that are not valid
propositions. It does not stupidly falsely assume that
every expression is a valid proposition.\
Logic isn't "Smart", it follows its rules.
Your rules are just inconsistent.
When-so-ever true means provable and false means not provable
the meaning of these words proves that such a system cannot
get stuck in pathological expressions.
And such a definition requires the system to be keep simple or it
becomes inconsistant.
LP := ~True(LP) has a cycle in the directed
graph of the elements of the expression related
to each other that Prolog and MTT detects.
So, what value does True(LP) return?
True(L,x) means x is true.
~True(L,x) means x is untrue which includes false and not a proposition. >>>
True(L,~x) means x is false.
~True(L,~x) means x is unfalse which includes true and not a
proposition.
True(L,LP) is false and True(L,~LP) is false which means LP
is not a proposition.
And if x is defined in L as ~True(L,x) means that True(L, x) is false,
then x being the negation of that result is a true statement.
~True(L, x) means x is either false or not a proposition
~True(L, ~x) means x is either true or not a proposition
Try reading those two lines 150 more times and maybe it will
break through your ADD. Alternatively you are simply a liar.
It is something like trivalent logic {true, false, incorrect}
~true is false or incorrect.
~false is true or incorrect.
On 7/6/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:*That is not the way it works in my system or Prolog*
On 7/6/2024 6:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for the >>>>>>>>>> necessaery references in it.Not at all. My logic is simply smart enough to reject
non-truth-bearers AKA expressions that are not valid
propositions. It does not stupidly falsely assume that
every expression is a valid proposition.\
Logic isn't "Smart", it follows its rules.
Your rules are just inconsistent.
When-so-ever true means provable and false means not provable
the meaning of these words proves that such a system cannot
get stuck in pathological expressions.
And such a definition requires the system to be keep simple or it
becomes inconsistant.
LP := ~True(LP) has a cycle in the directed
graph of the elements of the expression related
to each other that Prolog and MTT detects.
So, what value does True(LP) return?
True(L,x) means x is true.
~True(L,x) means x is untrue which includes false and not a
proposition.
True(L,~x) means x is false.
~True(L,~x) means x is unfalse which includes true and not a
proposition.
True(L,LP) is false and True(L,~LP) is false which means LP
is not a proposition.
And if x is defined in L as ~True(L,x) means that True(L, x) is
false, then x being the negation of that result is a true statement.
~True(L, x) means x is either false or not a proposition
~True(L, ~x) means x is either true or not a proposition
Try reading those two lines 150 more times and maybe it will
break through your ADD. Alternatively you are simply a liar.
It is something like trivalent logic {true, false, incorrect}
~true is false or incorrect.
~false is true or incorrect.
So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
what value does True(L, x) have?
then True(L,x) evaluates to false ultimately meaning
that x is incorrect.
We can't know for sure that x is incorrect until
we see that True(L,~x) also evaluates to false.
On 7/6/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 9:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 9:06 PM, olcott wrote:*That is not the way it works in my system or Prolog*
On 7/6/2024 6:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:41 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 4:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
The problem here is you logic doesn't actually allow for the >>>>>>>>>>>> necessaery references in it.Not at all. My logic is simply smart enough to reject
non-truth-bearers AKA expressions that are not valid
propositions. It does not stupidly falsely assume that
every expression is a valid proposition.\
Logic isn't "Smart", it follows its rules.
Your rules are just inconsistent.
When-so-ever true means provable and false means not provable >>>>>>>>> the meaning of these words proves that such a system cannot
get stuck in pathological expressions.
And such a definition requires the system to be keep simple or >>>>>>>> it becomes inconsistant.
LP := ~True(LP) has a cycle in the directed
graph of the elements of the expression related
to each other that Prolog and MTT detects.
So, what value does True(LP) return?
True(L,x) means x is true.
~True(L,x) means x is untrue which includes false and not a
proposition.
True(L,~x) means x is false.
~True(L,~x) means x is unfalse which includes true and not a
proposition.
True(L,LP) is false and True(L,~LP) is false which means LP
is not a proposition.
And if x is defined in L as ~True(L,x) means that True(L, x) is
false, then x being the negation of that result is a true statement. >>>>>>
~True(L, x) means x is either false or not a proposition
~True(L, ~x) means x is either true or not a proposition
Try reading those two lines 150 more times and maybe it will
break through your ADD. Alternatively you are simply a liar.
It is something like trivalent logic {true, false, incorrect}
~true is false or incorrect.
~false is true or incorrect.
So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
what value does True(L, x) have?
then True(L,x) evaluates to false ultimately meaning
that x is incorrect.
But doesn't ~false evaluate to True?
No. ~false evaluates to true or incorrect.
We can't know for sure that x is incorrect until
we see that True(L,~x) also evaluates to false.
And thus you system just blew up in a mass of flaming inconsistancy.
Is "a fish" true, false or not a proposition.
Since there is no requirement to check True(L, ~x) and it can't affectWhen x is defined to mean = ~True(L,x) in L
the value of ~True(L, x) you logic just doesn't work.
then True(L,x) is false and True(L,~x) is false
proving that x is not a proposition.
Is it really that hard to see that "a fish" is
not a proposition?
You need to go back and study how logic works, but my guess is youTry and show how "a fish" is true or false.
have wasted too much time on your other projects to do anything with
this, and you have poisioned you reputation with all you lies so no
one is going to look at this.
Pity, if you spent the last 20 year looking at this and seeing if you
can work out the problems, it might have made an viable alternate form
of logic, but we will never know since you killed it by lying about
halting and incompleteness and Tarski.
I did and it really seems that you are flat out lying about it.
It seems that you are trying to say that "a fish" must be true or false.
On 7/7/2024 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
what value does True(L, x) have?
then True(L,x) evaluates to false ultimately meaning
that x is incorrect.
But doesn't ~false evaluate to True?
No. ~false evaluates to true or incorrect.
So, "incorrect" is an ACTUAL logic state, not just "sort of" and ~~P
doesn't necessarily have the same value as P.
It is something like tri-valued logic.
Every other formal system would try to force "a fish" into
true or false and if that didn't work determine that the
formal system is incomplete.
IF you do mean this, then you first need to fully define how
"incorrect" works in ALL the logical operators.
(~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x)) ≡ ~Proposition(L,x)
Every variable is screened this way before any other
operations can be performed upon it.
x = "a fish" rejects every expression referencing x.
It also means you need to figure out what you logic system supports,
and can't just rely on the large base of work on normal binary logic.
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
Thare is a good aount of work on non-binary systems, and perhaps you
can find one that is close enough to try to use, but YOU need to do
that work.
In other words it is too difficult for you to understand
that "a fish" is not a proposition?
And realize that you system isn't applicable to any theorem based on a
binary logic system, since your system is not one.
All of the current systems of logic inherit their notion of
True(L,x) on the above basis.
(~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g)) ≡ ~Proposition(PA,g)
Mathematical incompleteness goes away.
Not at all
We can't know for sure that x is incorrect until
we see that True(L,~x) also evaluates to false.
And thus you system just blew up in a mass of flaming inconsistancy.
Is "a fish" true, false or not a proposition.
Since there is no requirement to check True(L, ~x) and it can'tWhen x is defined to mean = ~True(L,x) in L
affect the value of ~True(L, x) you logic just doesn't work.
then True(L,x) is false and True(L,~x) is false
proving that x is not a proposition.
But, since ~false isn't true, your system leaks information like crazy.
(~True(L,x) ∧ True(L,~x)) ≡ Conventional_False(L,x)
(True(L,x) ~Proposition(L,x) ~True(L,~x)) ≡ Conventional_True(L,x)
Once all of the variables have been screened out for
~Proposition(L,x) then all of the conventional operations
that are truth preserving can be applied to them.
Expressions such as (x ∧ ~x) are reduced to false.
Is it really that hard to see that "a fish" is
not a proposition?
You need to go back and study how logic works, but my guess is youTry and show how "a fish" is true or false.
have wasted too much time on your other projects to do anything with
this, and you have poisioned you reputation with all you lies so no
one is going to look at this.
Pity, if you spent the last 20 year looking at this and seeing if
you can work out the problems, it might have made an viable
alternate form of logic, but we will never know since you killed it
by lying about halting and incompleteness and Tarski.
I did and it really seems that you are flat out lying about it.
It seems that you are trying to say that "a fish" must be true or false. >>>
Nope, but in Tarski's logic, which is BINARY (so doesn't apply to your
TRINARY system you need to complete your definition of) True(L, "a
fish) would be false.
Tarski simply stupidly fails to reject erroneous propositions.
He falsely imagines that they don't exist. If "a fish" could
be encoded in his Tarski theory he would stupidly conclude that
this proves that a True(L,x) predicate cannot exist.
On 7/7/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/7/2024 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
what value does True(L, x) have?
then True(L,x) evaluates to false ultimately meaning
that x is incorrect.
But doesn't ~false evaluate to True?
No. ~false evaluates to true or incorrect.
So, "incorrect" is an ACTUAL logic state, not just "sort of" and ~~P
doesn't necessarily have the same value as P.
It is something like tri-valued logic.
It needs to either BE tri-valued, or be bi-valued, or be whatever
number of values it is.
True, False and IDK would be trivalued logic.
True, False and not-a-logic-sentence is not actually trivalued logic.
I use that example because it is easy to see that it is
Every other formal system would try to force "a fish" into
true or false and if that didn't work determine that the
formal system is incomplete.
Nope, most formal system just don't define "a fish" as a statement in
their langauge.
neither true nor false. It literally applies to any formal
system as expressive as English.
That is its error.
IF you do mean this, then you first need to fully define how
"incorrect" works in ALL the logical operators.
(~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x)) ≡ ~Proposition(L,x)
Every variable is screened this way before any other
operations can be performed upon it.
x = "a fish" rejects every expression referencing x.
Logic doesn't work that way.
Sorry, you are just totally ignorant of how formal logic works.Not at all formal logic is wrong because it does not do this.
That formal systems are not typically very expressive
It also means you need to figure out what you logic system supports,
and can't just rely on the large base of work on normal binary logic.
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
Nope, doesm't work that way. The problem is that most formal systems
don't express them selves with "Natural Language".
is by no means any evidence at all that they cannot be as
expressive as English.
And an "accurate model of the actual world" isn't available, so youThat is always the way that new things come into existence.
are hypothocating on a non-existant thing.
Thare is a good aount of work on non-binary systems, and perhaps you
can find one that is close enough to try to use, but YOU need to do
that work.
In other words it is too difficult for you to understand
that "a fish" is not a proposition?
Nope, YOU are the one that says it is one, and needs to be handled.
What formal logic system do you think you are working in?
That every expression of language that is {true on the basis of
its meaning expressed using language} must have a connection by
truth preserving operations to its {meaning expressed using language}
is a tautology. The accurate model of the actual world is expressed
using formal language and formalized natural language.
Not at all. Must system consistently rejects expressions
And realize that you system isn't applicable to any theorem based on
a binary logic system, since your system is not one.
All of the current systems of logic inherit their notion of
True(L,x) on the above basis.
(~True(PA,g) ∧ ~True(PA,~g)) ≡ ~Proposition(PA,g)
Mathematical incompleteness goes away.
Nope, you just made your system inconsistant if it was powerful enough
to express as a proposition in it that x in PA is ~True(PA, x).
that are neither true nor false.
Tarski shows a set of commonly held conditions that are sufficent toTarski stupidly allowed nonsense into his system.
allow that expression to be a proposition in PA.
Just as Godel does in a different manner by constructing his PrimativeIt is self-evidently correct that they must be screened out
Recursive Relationship that detects a proof of his statement G.
Not at all
We can't know for sure that x is incorrect until
we see that True(L,~x) also evaluates to false.
And thus you system just blew up in a mass of flaming inconsistancy. >>>>>>
Is "a fish" true, false or not a proposition.
Since there is no requirement to check True(L, ~x) and it can'tWhen x is defined to mean = ~True(L,x) in L
affect the value of ~True(L, x) you logic just doesn't work.
then True(L,x) is false and True(L,~x) is false
proving that x is not a proposition.
But, since ~false isn't true, your system leaks information like crazy. >>>>
(~True(L,x) ∧ True(L,~x)) ≡ Conventional_False(L,x)
(True(L,x) ~Proposition(L,x) ~True(L,~x)) ≡ Conventional_True(L,x)
Once all of the variables have been screened out for
~Proposition(L,x) then all of the conventional operations
that are truth preserving can be applied to them.
Expressions such as (x ∧ ~x) are reduced to false.
But you don't get to "screen out" statments like that.
otherwise things such as the Liar Paradox give you the false
impression that knowledge has no truth predicate.
You just don't understand the structure of logic.
Is it really that hard to see that "a fish" is
not a proposition?
You need to go back and study how logic works, but my guess is you >>>>>> have wasted too much time on your other projects to do anythingTry and show how "a fish" is true or false.
with this, and you have poisioned you reputation with all you lies >>>>>> so no one is going to look at this.
Pity, if you spent the last 20 year looking at this and seeing if
you can work out the problems, it might have made an viable
alternate form of logic, but we will never know since you killed
it by lying about halting and incompleteness and Tarski.
I did and it really seems that you are flat out lying about it.
It seems that you are trying to say that "a fish" must be true or
false.
Nope, but in Tarski's logic, which is BINARY (so doesn't apply to
your TRINARY system you need to complete your definition of) True(L,
"a fish) would be false.
Tarski simply stupidly fails to reject erroneous propositions.
He falsely imagines that they don't exist. If "a fish" could
be encoded in his Tarski theory he would stupidly conclude that
this proves that a True(L,x) predicate cannot exist.
Nope, he showed that this "erroneous proposition" is one that MUST be
a valid proposition given a few basic requirements on the logic system,
A few basic incorrect requirements such as stipulating that lies are
always true.
and the existance of the Predicate True(L, x) that returned true for
all x that are true, and false for all x that are false or
non-truth-bearing.
The meteoric rise of Curry-Howard isomorphism
and minimal logic, possibly because proof assistants
such as Lean, Agda, etc… all use it, is quite ironic,
in the light of this statement:
Because of the vagueness of the notions of “constructive
proof”, “constructive operation”, the BHK-interpretation
has never become a versatile technical tool in the way
classical semantics has. Perhaps it is correct to say
that by most people the BHK-interpretation has never been
seen as an intuitionistic counterpart to classical semantics. https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/j50/contribs/troelstra/troelstra.pdf
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
There are possibly issues of interdisciplinary
work. For example Sorensen & Urzyczyn in their
Lectures on the Curry-Howard Isomorphism say that
the logic LP has no name in literature.
On the other hand Segerbergs paper, shows that
a logic LP, in his labeling JP, that stems from
accepting Peice's Law is equivalent to a logic
accepting Curry's Refutation rule,
i.e the logic JE with:
Γ, A => B |- A
-----------------
Γ |- A
But the logic JE also implies that LEM was added!
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
The meteoric rise of Curry-Howard isomorphism
and minimal logic, possibly because proof assistants
such as Lean, Agda, etc… all use it, is quite ironic,
in the light of this statement:
Because of the vagueness of the notions of “constructiveMild Shock schrieb:
proof”, “constructive operation”, the BHK-interpretation
has never become a versatile technical tool in the way
classical semantics has. Perhaps it is correct to say
that by most people the BHK-interpretation has never been
seen as an intuitionistic counterpart to classical semantics.
https://festschriften.illc.uva.nl/j50/contribs/troelstra/troelstra.pdf >>
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/7/24 1:59 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/7/2024 12:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/7/24 9:34 AM, olcott wrote:
On 7/7/2024 6:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 10:12 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 7/6/24 10:51 PM, olcott wrote:
On 7/6/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
So if x is defined in L as ~True(L, x)
what value does True(L, x) have?
then True(L,x) evaluates to false ultimately meaning
that x is incorrect.
But doesn't ~false evaluate to True?
No. ~false evaluates to true or incorrect.
So, "incorrect" is an ACTUAL logic state, not just "sort of" and
~~P doesn't necessarily have the same value as P.
It is something like tri-valued logic.
It needs to either BE tri-valued, or be bi-valued, or be whatever
number of values it is.
True, False and IDK would be trivalued logic.
True, False and not-a-logic-sentence is not actually trivalued logic.
Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can
return or not?
True(L,x)==false and True(L,~x)==false
means that x is not a logic sentence.
I will stop here because you get overwhelmed.
On 7/7/2024 1:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
*I will try to be perfectly clear*
Is "Not-a-logic-sentence" a truth value that True, of ~false can
return or not?
Not-a-logic-sentence(L,x) ≡ (~True(L,x) ∧ ~True(L,~x))
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
Now I had an extremly resilient correspondent, who
wants to do proof extraction, but at the same
time refuses to learn the Curry-Howard isomorphism.
But its so easy, was just watching:
Hyperon Session with Dr. Ben Goertzel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uy3j4WCiXQ
At t=1853 he mentions C. S. Peirce thirdness, which
you can use to explain the Curry-Howard isomorphism:
1 *\ Γ = Context
| \
| * 3 t = λ-Expression
| /
2 */ α = Type
The above is a trikonic visualization of the judgement
Γ |- t : α, applying the art of making three-fold divisions.
But I guess C. S. Peirce is not read in France, since
it requires English. Or maybe there is a french translation?
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Plato (p. 83 of Elements of Logical
Reasoning) … excellent book
Hi,
I am not halucinating that Negri is nonsense:
This calculus does not terminate (e.g. on Peirce’s
formula). Negri [42] shows how to add a loop-checking
mechanism to ensure termination. The effect on complexity
isn’t yet clear; but the loop-checking is expensive.
Intuitionistic Decision Procedures since Gentzen
The Jägerfest - 2013
https://apt13.unibe.ch/slides/Dyckhoff.pdf
Bye
Sequent calculus offers a good possibility for
exhaustive proof search in propositional logic:
We can check through all the possibilities for
malking a derivation. If none of them worked,
i.e., if each had at least one branch in which
no rule applied and no initial sequent was reached,
the given sequent is underivable. The
symbol |/-, is used for underivability.
The premisses are simpler than the condusion
in all the rules except possibly in the left
premiss of rule L=>. That is the only source
of non-termination. Rules other than L=> can
produce duplication, if an active formula had
another occurrence in the antecedent. This
source of duplication comes to an end.
The sad news is, the book is only
worth some fire wood.
Plato (p. 83 of Elements of Logical Reasoning
Interestingly the book uses non-classical
logic, since it says:
Sequent calculus offers a good possibility for
exhaustive proof search in propositional logic:
We can check through all the possibilities for
malking a derivation. If none of them worked,
i.e., if each had at least one branch in which
no rule applied and no initial sequent was reached,
the given sequent is underivable. The
symbol |/-, is used for underivability.
And then it has unprovable:
c. |/- A v ~A
d. |/- ~~A => A
But mostlikely the book has a blind spot, some
serious errors, or totally unfounded claims, since
for example with such a calculus, the unprovability
of Peirce’s Law cannot be shown so easily.
Exhaustive proof search will usually not terminate.
There are some terminating calculi, like Dyckhoffs
LJT, but a naive calculus based on Gentzens take
will not terminate.
The single-succedent sequent calculus of proof
search of Table 4.1 is a relatively recent invention:
Building on the work of Albert Dragalin (1978) on the
invertibility of logical rules in sequent calculi,
Anne Troelstra worked out the details of the proof
theory of this `contraction-free' calculus in the
book Basic Proof Theorv (2000).
Propositional Dynamic Logic of Regular Programs
Fischer & Ladner - 1979 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022000079900461
The modal systems K, T, S4, S5 (cf. Ladner [16]) are
recognizable subsystems of propositional dynamic logic.
K allows only the modality A,
T allows only the modality A u λ,
S4 allows ordy the modality A*,
S5 allows only the modality (A u A-)*.
Rather read the original, von Plato
takes his wisdom from:
The single-succedent sequent calculus of proof
search of Table 4.1 is a relatively recent invention:
Building on the work of Albert Dragalin (1978) on the
invertibility of logical rules in sequent calculi,
Anne Troelstra worked out the details of the proof
theory of this `contraction-free' calculus in the
book Basic Proof Theorv (2000).
But the book by Troelstra (1939-2019) and
Schwichtenberg (1949 -), doesn’t contain a minimal
logic is decidable theorem, based on some “loop
checking”, as indicated by von Plato on page 78.
The problem situation is similar as in Prolog SLD
resolution, where S stands for selection function.
Since the (L=>) inference rule is not invertible, it
involves a selection function σ,
that picks the active formula:
Γ, A => B |- A Γ, B |- C A selection function σ did pick
------------------------------- (L=>) A => B from the left hand side
Γ, A => B |- C
One selection function might loop, another
selection function might not loop. In Jens Otten
ileansep.p through backtracking over the predicate
select/3 and iterative deepening all selections
are tried. To show unprovability you have to show
looping for all possible selection functions, which
is obviously less trivial than the “root-first proof
search” humbug from von Platos vegan products
store that offers “naturally growing trees”.
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
It is interesting to note that almost
all the major subfields of AI mirror
subfields of philosophy: The AI analogue
of philosophy of language is computational
linguistics; what philosophers call “practical
reasoning” is called “planning and acting” in
AI; ontology (indeed, much of metaphysics
and epistemology) corresponds to knowledge
representation in AI; and automated reasoning
is one of the AI analogues of logic.
– C.2.1.1 Intentions, practitions, and the ought-to-do.
Should AI workers study philosophy? Yes,
unless they are content to reinvent the wheel
every few days. When AI reinvents a wheel, it is
typically square, or at best hexagonal, and
can only make a few hundred revolutions before
it stops. Philosopher’s wheels, on the other hand,
are perfect circles, require in principle no
lubrication, and can go in at least two directions
at once. Clearly a meeting of minds is in order.
– C.4 Summary
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
The cognitive revolution was an intellectual movement that began in the 1950s as an interdisciplinary study of the mind and its processes, from which emerged a new field known as cognitive science.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have we lost contact with the primary studies of knowledge and reasoning, we have also lost contact
with the studies of methods and motivation. Psychology was the basic
home room of Alan Newell and many other AI all stars. What is now called
AI, I think incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large amounts of
very cheap computer power to calculate approximates to correlations and
other statistical approximations.
The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we learn nothing about
the capturing of knowledge, what it is, or how it is used. Both logic
and heuristic reasoning are needed and we certainly believe that
intelligence is not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process was pure genius
but known to produce fallacious results when you know what Einstein knew
at a later time.
I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about MYCIN (an early
AI medical consultant for diagnosing blood-borne infectious diseases)
where I learned about one use of the term "staff disease", or just
"staff" for short. In patient care areas there always seems to be an
in-house infection that changes over time. It changes because sick
patients brought into the area contribute whatever is making them sick
in the first place. In the second place there is rapid mutations driven
by all sorts of factors present in hospital-like environments. The
result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute by minute.
In a days time, the samples you took are no longer valid, i.e., their
day old cultures may be meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem
is that probability theory doesn't really have the tools to make
predictions when the basic probabilities are changing faster than observations can be turned into inferences.
Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities here? Because
new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation to simulate probabilistic
inference, e.g., Bayesian inference. Since actual probabilities may not
exist in any meaningful ways, the simulations are often based on air.
A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to explain how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also able to repair our inner models
when we are in error if we can understand why. The abilities to explain
and repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes. By the
way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses reflective
abilities. Those who do are few and far between. However, any AI that
doesn't have some of these capabilities isn't very interesting.
For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human ability
to reasonably reason, see https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html
-- Jeff Barnett
Hi,
Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive
Turn is characterized as:
The cognitive revolution was an intellectual movement that began inhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
the 1950s as an interdisciplinary study of the mind and its processes,
from which emerged a new field known as cognitive science.
The current mainstream believe is that
Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
based on "Machine Learning", whereas
most of the progress is more based on
"Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist
is again lurking. In the worst case the
no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
Technological singularity in that the current
short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
some long inferencing, like here:
A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles. https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705
making it possible not to excell by LLMs
in such puzzles, but to advance to more
elaborate scientific models, that can somehow
overcome fallacies such as:
- Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
caused by averaging?
- Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
- What else?
So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
of science which we will happily depend on.
Jeff Barnett schrieb:
You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have we lost contact with
the primary studies of knowledge and reasoning, we have also lost
contact with the studies of methods and motivation. Psychology was the
basic home room of Alan Newell and many other AI all stars. What is
now called AI, I think incorrectly, is just ways of exercising large
amounts of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates to
correlations and other statistical approximations.
The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we learn nothing
about the capturing of knowledge, what it is, or how it is used. Both
logic and heuristic reasoning are needed and we certainly believe that
intelligence is not measured by its ability to discover "truth" or its
infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process was pure
genius but known to produce fallacious results when you know what
Einstein knew at a later time.
I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about MYCIN (an early
AI medical consultant for diagnosing blood-borne infectious diseases)
where I learned about one use of the term "staff disease", or just
"staff" for short. In patient care areas there always seems to be an
in-house infection that changes over time. It changes because sick
patients brought into the area contribute whatever is making them sick
in the first place. In the second place there is rapid mutations
driven by all sorts of factors present in hospital-like environments.
The result is that the local staff is varying, literally, minute by
minute. In a days time, the samples you took are no longer valid,
i.e., their day old cultures may be meaningless. The underlying
mathematical problem is that probability theory doesn't really have
the tools to make predictions when the basic probabilities are
changing faster than observations can be turned into inferences.
Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities here? Because
new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation to simulate probabilistic
inference, e.g., Bayesian inference. Since actual probabilities may
not exist in any meaningful ways, the simulations are often based on air.
A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to explain how
we arrived at our conclusions. We are also able to repair our inner
models when we are in error if we can understand why. The abilities to
explain and repair are fundamental to excellence of thought processes.
By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have theses
reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between. However,
any AI that doesn't have some of these capabilities isn't very
interesting.
For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human ability
to reasonably reason, see
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html
-- Jeff Barnett
My impression Cognitive Science was never
Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke.
The time scale, its start in 1950s and that
it is still relative unknown subject,
would explain:
- why my father or mother never tried to
educated me towards cognitive science.
It could be that they are totally blank
in this respect?
- why my grandfather or grandmothers never
tried to educate me towards cognitive
science. Dito It could be that they are totally
blank in this respect?
- it could be that there are rare cases where
some philosophers had already a glimps of
cognitive science. But when I open for
example this booklet:
System der Logic
Friedrich Ueberweg
Bonn - 1868
https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL
One can feel the dry swimming that is reported
for several millennia. What happened in the
1950s was the possibility of computer modelling.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive
Turn is characterized as:
The cognitive revolution was an intellectual movement that began inhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
the 1950s as an interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
processes, from which emerged a new field known as cognitive science.
The current mainstream believe is that
Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
based on "Machine Learning", whereas
most of the progress is more based on
"Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist
is again lurking. In the worst case the
no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
Technological singularity in that the current
short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
some long inferencing, like here:
A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles.
https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705
making it possible not to excell by LLMs
in such puzzles, but to advance to more
elaborate scientific models, that can somehow
overcome fallacies such as:
- Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
caused by averaging?
- Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
- What else?
So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
of science which we will happily depend on.
Jeff Barnett schrieb:
You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have we lost contact with
the primary studies of knowledge and reasoning, we have also lost
contact with the studies of methods and motivation. Psychology was
the basic home room of Alan Newell and many other AI all stars. What
is now called AI, I think incorrectly, is just ways of exercising
large amounts of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
to correlations and other statistical approximations.
The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we learn nothing
about the capturing of knowledge, what it is, or how it is used. Both
logic and heuristic reasoning are needed and we certainly believe
that intelligence is not measured by its ability to discover "truth"
or its infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought process was
pure genius but known to produce fallacious results when you know
what Einstein knew at a later time.
I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about MYCIN (an
early AI medical consultant for diagnosing blood-borne infectious
diseases) where I learned about one use of the term "staff disease",
or just "staff" for short. In patient care areas there always seems
to be an in-house infection that changes over time. It changes
because sick patients brought into the area contribute whatever is
making them sick in the first place. In the second place there is
rapid mutations driven by all sorts of factors present in
hospital-like environments. The result is that the local staff is
varying, literally, minute by minute. In a days time, the samples you
took are no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is that probability
theory doesn't really have the tools to make predictions when the
basic probabilities are changing faster than observations can be
turned into inferences.
Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities here? Because
new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation to simulate probabilistic
inference, e.g., Bayesian inference. Since actual probabilities may
not exist in any meaningful ways, the simulations are often based on
air.
A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to explain how
we arrived at our conclusions. We are also able to repair our inner
models when we are in error if we can understand why. The abilities
to explain and repair are fundamental to excellence of thought
processes. By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I have
theses reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far between.
However, any AI that doesn't have some of these capabilities isn't
very interesting.
For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
ability to reasonably reason, see
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html
-- Jeff Barnett
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
And "cognitive science" has recently pursued
the relation of intentional mental activities
to neural processes in the brain.
Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary
science that deals with the processing of
information in the context of perception,
thinking and decision-making processes,
both in humans and in animals or machines.
BTW: Friedrich Ueberweg is quite good
and funny to browse, he reports relatively
unfiltered what we would nowadays call
forms of "rational behaviour", so its a little
pot purry, except for his sections where he
explains some schemas, like the Aristotelan
figures, which are more pure logic of the form.
And peng you get a guy talking pages and
pages about pure and form:
"Pure" logic, ontology, and phenomenology
David Woodruff Smith https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm
But the above is a from species of philosophy
that is endangered now. Its predator are
abstractions on the computer like lambda
calculus and the Curry Howard isomorphism. The
revue has become an irrelevant cabarett, only
dead people would be interested in, like
may father, grandfather etc...
Mild Shock schrieb:
My impression Cognitive Science was never
Bayesian Brain, so I guess I made a joke.
The time scale, its start in 1950s and that
it is still relative unknown subject,
would explain:
- why my father or mother never tried to
educated me towards cognitive science.
It could be that they are totally blank
in this respect?
- why my grandfather or grandmothers never
tried to educate me towards cognitive
science. Dito It could be that they are totally
blank in this respect?
- it could be that there are rare cases where
some philosophers had already a glimps of
cognitive science. But when I open for
example this booklet:
System der Logic
Friedrich Ueberweg
Bonn - 1868
https://philpapers.org/rec/UEBSDL
One can feel the dry swimming that is reported
for several millennia. What happened in the
1950s was the possibility of computer modelling.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
Yes, maybe we are just before a kind
of 2nd Cognitive Turn. The first Cognitive
Turn is characterized as:
The cognitive revolution was an intellectual movement that began inhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_revolution
the 1950s as an interdisciplinary study of the mind and its
processes, from which emerged a new field known as cognitive science.
The current mainstream believe is that
Chat Bots and the progress in AI is mainly
based on "Machine Learning", whereas
most of the progress is more based on
"Deep Learning". But I am also sceptical
about "Deep Learning" in the end a frequentist
is again lurking. In the worst case the
no Bayension Brain shock will come with a
Technological singularity in that the current
short inferencing of LLMs is enhanced by
some long inferencing, like here:
A week ago, I posted that I was cooking a
logical reasoning benchmark as a side project.
Now it's finally ready! Introducing 🦓 𝙕𝙚𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙇𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘,
designed for evaluating LLMs with Logic Puzzles.
https://x.com/billyuchenlin/status/1814254565128335705
making it possible not to excell by LLMs
in such puzzles, but to advance to more
elaborate scientific models, that can somehow
overcome fallacies such as:
- Kochen Specker Paradox, some fallacies
caused by averaging?
- Gluts and Gaps in Bayesian Reasoning,
some fallacies by consistency assumptions?
- What else?
So on quiet paws AI might become the new overlord
of science which we will happily depend on.
Jeff Barnett schrieb:
You are surprised; I am saddened. Not only have we lost contact with
the primary studies of knowledge and reasoning, we have also lost
contact with the studies of methods and motivation. Psychology was
the basic home room of Alan Newell and many other AI all stars. What
is now called AI, I think incorrectly, is just ways of exercising
large amounts of very cheap computer power to calculate approximates
to correlations and other statistical approximations.
The problem with all of this in my mind, is that we learn nothing
about the capturing of knowledge, what it is, or how it is used.
Both logic and heuristic reasoning are needed and we certainly
believe that intelligence is not measured by its ability to discover
"truth" or its infallibly consistent results. Newton's thought
process was pure genius but known to produce fallacious results when
you know what Einstein knew at a later time.
I remember reading Ted Shortliffe's dissertation about MYCIN (an
early AI medical consultant for diagnosing blood-borne infectious
diseases) where I learned about one use of the term "staff disease",
or just "staff" for short. In patient care areas there always seems
to be an in-house infection that changes over time. It changes
because sick patients brought into the area contribute whatever is
making them sick in the first place. In the second place there is
rapid mutations driven by all sorts of factors present in
hospital-like environments. The result is that the local staff is
varying, literally, minute by minute. In a days time, the samples
you took are no longer valid, i.e., their day old cultures may be
meaningless. The underlying mathematical problem is that probability
theory doesn't really have the tools to make predictions when the
basic probabilities are changing faster than observations can be
turned into inferences.
Why do I mention the problems of unstable probabilities here?
Because new AI uses fancy ideas of correlation to simulate
probabilistic inference, e.g., Bayesian inference. Since actual
probabilities may not exist in any meaningful ways, the simulations
are often based on air.
A hallmark of excellent human reasoning is the ability to explain
how we arrived at our conclusions. We are also able to repair our
inner models when we are in error if we can understand why. The
abilities to explain and repair are fundamental to excellence of
thought processes. By the way, I'm not claiming that all humans or I
have theses reflective abilities. Those who do are few and far
between. However, any AI that doesn't have some of these
capabilities isn't very interesting.
For more on reasons why logic and truth are only part of human
ability to reasonably reason, see
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-want-convince-conspiracy-theory-100258277.html
-- Jeff Barnett
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Well we all know about this rule:
- Never ask a woman about her weight
- Never ask a woman about her age
There is a similar rule for philosophers:
- Never ask a philosopher what is cognitive science
- Never ask a philosopher what is formula-as-types
Explanation: They like to be the champions of
pure form like in this paper below, so they
don’t like other disciplines dealing with pure
form or even having pure form on the computer.
"Pure” logic, ontology, and phenomenology
David Woodruff Smith - Revue internationale de philosophie 2003/2
There are more and more papers of this sort:
Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
To address this, we propose a neurosymbolic
approach that prompts LLMs to extract and encode
all relevant information from a problem statement as
logical code statements, and then use a logic programming
language (Prolog) to conduct the iterative computations of
explicit deductive reasoning.
[2407.11373] Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
The future of Prolog is bright?
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
Lets say one milestone in cognitive science,
is the concept of "bounded rationality".
It seems LLMs have some traits that are also
found in humans. For example the anchoring effect
is a psychological phenomenon in which an
individual’s judgements or decisions
are influenced by a reference point or “anchor”
which can be completely irrelevant. Like for example
when discussing Curry Howard isomorphism with
a real world philosopher , one that might
not know Curry Howard isomorphism but
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect
nevertheless be tempted to hallucinate some nonsense.
One highly cited paper in this respect is Tversky &
Kahneman 1974. R.I.P. Daniel Kahneman,
March 27, 2024. The paper is still cited today:
Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Biases: A Viewpoint https://www.cairn.info/revue-journal-of-innovation-economics-2024-2-page-223.htm
Maybe using deeper and/or more careful reasoning,
possibly backed up by Prolog engine, could have
a positive effect? Its very difficult also for a
Prolog engine, since there is a trade-off
between producing no answer at all if the software
agent is too careful, and of producing a wealth
of nonsense otherwise.
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Well we all know about this rule:
- Never ask a woman about her weight
- Never ask a woman about her age
There is a similar rule for philosophers:
- Never ask a philosopher what is cognitive science
- Never ask a philosopher what is formula-as-types
Explanation: They like to be the champions of
pure form like in this paper below, so they
don’t like other disciplines dealing with pure
form or even having pure form on the computer.
"Pure” logic, ontology, and phenomenology
David Woodruff Smith - Revue internationale de philosophie 2003/2
https://www.cairn.info/revue-internationale-de-philosophie-2003-2-page-21.htm
Mild Shock schrieb:
There are more and more papers of this sort:
Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
To address this, we propose a neurosymbolic
approach that prompts LLMs to extract and encode
all relevant information from a problem statement as
logical code statements, and then use a logic programming
language (Prolog) to conduct the iterative computations of
explicit deductive reasoning.
[2407.11373] Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
The future of Prolog is bright?
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
There are more and more papers of this sort:
Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
To address this, we propose a neurosymbolic
approach that prompts LLMs to extract and encode
all relevant information from a problem statement as
logical code statements, and then use a logic programming
language (Prolog) to conduct the iterative computations of
explicit deductive reasoning.
[2407.11373] Reliable Reasoning Beyond Natural Language
The future of Prolog is bright?
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
What a bullshit:
Another concern is the potential for AI to displace
jobs and exacerbate economic inequality. A recent
study by McKinsey estimates that up to 800 million
jobs could be automated by 2030. While Murati believes
that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it
displaces, she acknowledges the need for policies to
support workers through the transition, such as job
retraining programs and strengthened social safety nets. https://expertbeacon.com/mira-murati-shaping-the-future-of-ai-ethics-and-innovation-at-openai/
Lets say there is a wine valley. All workers
are replaced by AI robots. Where do they go.
In some cultures you don't find people over
30 that are long life learners. What should they
learn, on another valley where they harvest
oranges, they also replaced everybody by AI
robots. And so on the next valley, and the
next valley. We need NGO's and a Greta Thunberg
for AI ethics, not a nice face from OpenAI.
What a bullshit:
Another concern is the potential for AI to displace
jobs and exacerbate economic inequality. A recent
study by McKinsey estimates that up to 800 million
jobs could be automated by 2030. While Murati believes
that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it
displaces, she acknowledges the need for policies to
support workers through the transition, such as job
retraining programs and strengthened social safety nets. https://expertbeacon.com/mira-murati-shaping-the-future-of-ai-ethics-and-innovation-at-openai/
Lets say there is a wine valley. All workers
are replaced by AI robots. Where do they go.
In some cultures you don't find people over
30 that are long life learners. What should they
learn, on another valley where they harvest
oranges, they also replaced everybody by AI
robots. And so on the next valley, and the
next valley. We need NGO's and a Greta Thunberg
for AI ethics, not a nice face from OpenAI.
Mild Shock schrieb:
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/
Now they are dancing https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352
Bye
Its amazing how we are in the mists of new buzzwords
such as superintelligence, superhuman, etc… I used
the term “long inferencing” in one post somewhere
for a combination of LLM with a more capable inferencing,
compared to current LLMs that rather show “short inferencing”.
Then just yesterday its was Strawberry and Orion, as the
next leap by OpenAI. Is the leap getting out of control?
OpenAI wanted to do “Superalignment” but lost a figure head.
Now there is new company which wants to do safety-focused
non-narrow AI. But they chose another name. If I translate
superhuman to German I might end with “Übermensch”,
first used by Nietzsche and later by Hitler and the
Nazi regime. How ironic!
Nick Bostrom - Superintelligence https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1037878459
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/
Now they are dancing
https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352
Bye
Its amazing how we are in the mists of new buzzwords
such as superintelligence, superhuman, etc… I used
the term “long inferencing” in one post somewhere
for a combination of LLM with a more capable inferencing,
compared to current LLMs that rather show “short inferencing”.
Then just yesterday its was Strawberry and Orion, as the
next leap by OpenAI. Is the leap getting out of control?
OpenAI wanted to do “Superalignment” but lost a figure head.
Now there is new company which wants to do safety-focused
non-narrow AI. But they chose another name. If I translate
superhuman to German I might end with “Übermensch”,
first used by Nietzsche and later by Hitler and the
Nazi regime. How ironic!
Nick Bostrom - Superintelligence https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1037878459
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/
Now they are dancing
https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352
Bye
Hi,
Not sure whether this cinematic master piece
contains a rendition when I was hunted recently
by a virus and had some hypomanic episodes.
But the chapter "Electromagnetic Waves" is fun:
Three Thousand Years of Longing https://youtu.be/id8-z5vANvc?si=h3mvNLs11UuY8HnD&t=3881
Bye
Mild Shock schrieb:
Its amazing how we are in the mists of new buzzwords
such as superintelligence, superhuman, etc… I used
the term “long inferencing” in one post somewhere
for a combination of LLM with a more capable inferencing,
compared to current LLMs that rather show “short inferencing”.
Then just yesterday its was Strawberry and Orion, as the
next leap by OpenAI. Is the leap getting out of control?
OpenAI wanted to do “Superalignment” but lost a figure head.
Now there is new company which wants to do safety-focused
non-narrow AI. But they chose another name. If I translate
superhuman to German I might end with “Übermensch”,
first used by Nietzsche and later by Hitler and the
Nazi regime. How ironic!
Nick Bostrom - Superintelligence
https://www.orellfuessli.ch/shop/home/artikeldetails/A1037878459
Mild Shock schrieb:
Hi,
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK, Sept 4 - Safe
Superintelligence (SSI), newly co-founded by OpenAI's
former chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, has raised $1
billion in cash to help develop safe artificial
intelligence systems that far surpass human
capabilities, company executives told Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/openai-co-founder-sutskevers-new-safety-focused-ai-startup-ssi-raises-1-billion-2024-09-04/
Now they are dancing
https://twitter.com/AIForHumansShow/status/1831465601782706352
Bye
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat
You know USA has a problem,
when Oracle enters the race:
To source the 131,072 GPU Al "supercluster,"
Larry Ellison, appealed directly to Jensen Huang,
during a dinner joined by Elon Musk at Nobu.
"I would describe the dinner as me and Elon
begging Jensen for GPUs. Please take our money.
We need you to take more of our money. Please!” https://twitter.com/benitoz/status/1834741314740756621
Meanwhile a contender in Video GenAI
FLUX.1 from Germany, Hurray! With Open Source:
OK. Now I'm Scared... AI Better Than Reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMAVWDD-DU
Mild Shock schrieb:
The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating
are lower for AI than for humans
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54271-x
Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas says that the cost per
query in AI models has decreased by 100x in the past
2 years and quality will improve as hallucinations
decrease 10x per year
https://twitter.com/tsarnick/status/1830045611036721254
Disclaimer: Can't verify the later claim... need to find a paper.
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
The blue are AfD, the green are:
German greens after losing badly https://www.dw.com/en/german-greens-suffer-major-loss-of-votes-in-eu-elections-nina-haase-reports/video-69316755
Time to start a yellow party, the first party
with an Artificial Intelligence Ethics agenda?
Bye
P.S.: Here I tried some pigwrestling with
ChatGPT demonstrating Mira Murati is just
a nice face. But ChatGPT is just like a child,
spamming me with large bullets list, from
its huge lexical memory, without any deep
understanding. But it also gave me an interesting
list of potential caliber AI critiques. Any new
Greta Thunberg of Artificial Intelligence
Ethics among them?
Mira Murati Education Background https://chatgpt.com/c/fbc385d4-de8d-4f29-b925-30fac75072d4
Mild Shock schrieb:
What a bullshit:
Another concern is the potential for AI to displace
jobs and exacerbate economic inequality. A recent
study by McKinsey estimates that up to 800 million
jobs could be automated by 2030. While Murati believes
that AI will ultimately create more jobs than it
displaces, she acknowledges the need for policies to
support workers through the transition, such as job
retraining programs and strengthened social safety nets.
https://expertbeacon.com/mira-murati-shaping-the-future-of-ai-ethics-and-innovation-at-openai/
Lets say there is a wine valley. All workers
are replaced by AI robots. Where do they go.
In some cultures you don't find people over
30 that are long life learners. What should they
learn, on another valley where they harvest
oranges, they also replaced everybody by AI
robots. And so on the next valley, and the
next valley. We need NGO's and a Greta Thunberg
for AI ethics, not a nice face from OpenAI.
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009 https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
Hi,
ChatGPT is rather dry, giving me always some
choice lists displaying his knowledge. The
interaction is not very "involving".
Could this be improved. There are possibly two
traits missing:
Feelings:
- Emotional states
- Temporariness
- Reaction to external circumstances
- Changeability
- Subjective sensations
Soul:
- Spirituality
- Immortality
- Innermost being
- Essence of an individual
- Deep, enduring aspects of human existence
Mostlikely we will see both traits added to AI.
"Emotional AI" has been more discussed already,
"Spiritual AI" seems to be rather new.
In a "Spiritual AI" Faith would probably be important,
which is probably at the upper end of credulous
reasoning. This means that such a ChatGPT could
also babble that in a Prisoner Dilemma Game,
cooperation is always the better alternative,
e.g. promoting "altruistic" motives, etc.
I also suspect that “Spiritual AI” and “Emotional
AI” could coexist. Many religions give Cosmopolitan
magazin style life advice, and not just theological
dogmas. There will probably soon be an “Inner Engineering”
app from Sadhguru that works with AI. Sadhguru is
also sometimes satirically referred to as Chadguru:
Sat Guru Parody | Carryminati
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlZqxP5MXFs
Mild Shock schrieb:
Could be a wake-up call this many participants
already in the commitee, that the whole logic
world was asleep for many years:
Non-Classical Logics. Theory and Applications XI,
5-8 September 2024, Lodz (Poland)
https://easychair.org/cfp/NCL24
Why is Minimal Logic at the core of many things?
Because it is the logic of Curry-Howard isomoprhism
for symple types:
----------------
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ A
Γ ∪ { A } ⊢ B
----------------
Γ ⊢ A → B
Γ ⊢ A → B Δ ⊢ A
----------------------------
Γ ∪ Δ ⊢ B
And funny things can happen, especially when people
hallucinate duality or think symmetry is given, for
example in newer inventions such as λμ-calculus,
but then omg ~~p => p is nevertheless not provable,
because they forgot an inference rule. LoL
Recommended reading so far:
Propositional Logics Related to Heyting’s and Johansson’s
February 2008 - Krister Segerberg
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228036664
The Logic of Church and Curry
Jonathan P. Seldin - 2009
https://www.sciencedirect.com/handbook/handbook-of-the-history-of-logic/vol/5/suppl/C
Meanwhile I am going back to my tinkering with my
Prolog system, which even provides a more primitive
logic than minimal logic, pure Prolog is minimal
logic without embedded implication.
will probably never get a Turing Award or something
for what I did 23 years ago. Why is its reading
count on research gate suddently going up?
Knowledge, Planning and Language,
November 2001
I guess because of this, the same topic takled by
Microsofts recent model GRIN. Shit. I really should
find some investor and pump up a start up!
"Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) models scale more
effectively than dense models due to sparse
computation through expert routing, selectively
activating only a small subset of expert modules." https://arxiv.org/pdf/2409.12136
But somehow I am happy with my dolce vita as
it is now... Or maybe I am decepting myself?
P.S.: From the GRIN paper, here you see how
expert domains modules relate with each other:
Figure 6 (b): MoE Routing distribution similarity
across MMLU 57 tasks for the control recipe.
How it started:
How Hezbollah used pagers and couriers to counter
July 9, 2024 https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/pagers-drones-how-hezbollah-aims-counter-israels-high-tech-surveillance-2024-07-09/
How its going:
What we know about the Hezbollah pager explosions
Sept 17, 2024
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz04m913m49o
Mild Shock schrieb:
Trump: They're eating the dogs, the cats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5llMaZ80ErY
https://twitter.com/search?q=trump+cat
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 11:22:55 |
| Calls: | 12,100 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,994 |