On 2024-10-18 23:43:15 +0000, olcott said:
> On 10/18/2024 6:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/17/24 10:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 10/16/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/24 6:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 10/16/2024 11:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-10-16 14:27:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole notion of undecidability is anchored in ignoring the fact that
>>>>>>> some expressions of language are simply not truth bearers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A formal theory is undecidable if there is no Turing machine that
>>>>>> determines whether a formula of that theory is a theorem of that
>>>>>> theory or not. Whether an expression is a truth bearer is not
>>>>>> relevant. Either there is a valid proof of that formula or there
>>>>>> is not. No third possibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *I still said that wrong*
>>>>> (1) There is a finite set of expressions of language
>>>>> that are stipulated to be true (STBT) in theory L.
>>>>>
>>>>> (2) There is a finite set of true preserving operations
>>>>> (TPO) that can be applied to this finite set in theory L.
>>>>>
>>>>> When formula x cannot be derived by applying the TPO
>>>>> of L to STBT of L then x is not a theorem of L.
>>>>>
>>>>> A theorem is a statement that can be demonstrated to be
>>>>> true by accepted mathematical operations and arguments.
>>>>> https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Theorem.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How can there not be a Yes or No answer to it being a statement that
>>>> can be proven true?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't say anything like that in the words shown
>>> immediately above. Maybe the reason that you get
>>> so confused is that you never respond to the exact
>>> words that I just said right now.
>>>
>>
>> Then what are you referring to if other than your initial claim?
>>
>> What statement are you saying simply not being a truth bearer makes the
>> definition of undecidability incorrect?
>>
>> I reply to your WHOLE message, as context matters.
>>
>> Your statements (1) and (2) are just clearification that you understand
>> the problem, but then how can the fact that we can show that there can
>> be some statements we can not know if they are provable or not, not be
>> a valid proof of the system being undecidable?
>>
>> Note, that the fact that we haven't been able to demonstrate that a
>> proof exists, is not in itself a proof that no such proof exists.
>
> When one thinks of proofs as finite string transformation
> rules then one finite string can be transformed into another
> according to the transformation rules or not.
Typical logic systems have transformation rules that transform two
strings to one. For example, you cannot infer A ∧ B from A nor from
B but if you have both A and B then you can infer A ∧ B.
--
Mikko
|
|