The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Uniting Forces: Email to Prof. Norman J. Wildberger on Politics,IneptitudeandFraud
 There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic. There was an error processing your request. Please try again. Standard view   View as tree
 3 messages

From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Subject:
 Validation: For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon.

More options Oct 27 2012, 3:57 am
Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math, sci.physics, comp.ai.philosophy, rec.org.mensa
From: Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 00:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Uniting Forces: Email to Prof. Norman J. Wildberger on Politics,IneptitudeandFraud
On Oct 26, 11:58 pm, Frederick Williams

Ahh!  Fred has finally reached [ERROR 1]

At this rate, Aatu will be figuring out how to construct a_ny sentence

F&~F |-  g, g<->~prv(g)

by next Easter!

------------------------------------
[ERROR 1]
By WFF you mean it has a single reduction tree in predicate calculus
from sub predicates and atomic formula, giving it a unique
interpretation.
So you have limited the scope of your proof to boolean formula (true
or false).
-------------------------------
[ERROR 2]
THEN:  YOU START ADDING FORMULA AT WILL.
"WE CAN CONSTRUCT ANY FORMULA AND TRY TO ADD IT TO THE THEORY"
PA |- P
This is using an axiom-less or inconsistent theory
--------------------------------------
[VALID STEP]
Because P is "true" by some rudimentary reductions (P can't be false)
NOT( PA |- P )
NOT( PA |- ~P )
-------------------------------------
[ERROR 3]
P <-> NOT( PA |- P )
so P is TRUE  (in PA)
-------------------------------------
[ERROR 4]
P is a WFF in PA
AND
P is TRUE in PA
--->  P is a missing theorem of PA
You EQUATE
WFF + TRUE -->  THEOREM
-------------------------------------
[ERROR 5]
Because:
(P -> Q)  ->   (P ^ AXIOM) -> Q
is true for 0 order terms (but not formula with quantifiers)
You conclude adding AXIOMS to PA could never filter out the Godel
Statement and call it
MONOTONIC LOGIC!
-------------------------------

> and thus

>   P fails to prove some true sentence.

Sounds like Godel's proof!

Herc

To post a message you must first join this group.
You do not have the permission required to post.
 Discussion subject changed to "Uniting Forces: Email to Prof. Norman J. Wildberger on Politics,Ineptitude and Fraud" by Graham Cooper
More options Oct 27 2012, 3:48 pm
Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math, sci.physics, comp.ai.philosophy, rec.org.mensa
From: Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 12:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Uniting Forces: Email to Prof. Norman J. Wildberger on Politics,Ineptitude and Fraud
On Oct 28, 2:36 am, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote:

> >> - Therefore a theory that can carry out basic arithmetic operations
> >>     is a consistent theory.

> > G del never says any such thing.

> Not literally word for word of course. No more than he said
> that his informal proof can be "formalized" by PRA 80 years
> later, word for word.

SCI.MATH and SCI.LOGIC seem to think FORMAL means it's got A, E, ~,
( ) in it!

Common mistake by beginners to assume their language is formal because
it looks rigorous but it's actually a lot of work to construct an
actual formal system.

On Oct 27, 11:28 am, George Greene <gree...@email.unc.edu> wrote:

> EVERYthing is formal and algorithmic.  In particular, first-order
> INFERENCE AND PROOF are formal and algorithmic.

This is just LINE BY LINE level of automation, not a formal system.

Same MEGA-MISTAKE by Godel and Tarski.

The FORMAL SYSTEM enumerates the sentences, you don't CONSTRUCT
anything!

"We can CONSTRUCT *A* sentence"  L<->~Tr(#L)
/\
||
\/
"We can CONSTRUCT *ANY* sentence"  L<->~Tr(#L)
/\
||
\/
F&~F  |-   W

You cannot prove anything about Axiomatic Systems this way!
QED

Herc

To post a message you must first join this group.
You do not have the permission required to post.
 Discussion subject changed to "Uniting Forces: Email to Prof. Norman J. Wildberger on Politics, Ineptitude and Fraud" by Graham Cooper
More options Oct 30 2012, 4:35 pm
Newsgroups: sci.logic, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.lang.prolog, rec.org.mensa
From: Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 13:35:23 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Oct 30 2012 4:35 pm
Subject: Re: Uniting Forces: Email to Prof. Norman J. Wildberger on Politics, Ineptitude and Fraud
On Oct 31, 1:18 am, Rupert <rupertmccal...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Backward Chain the Answer.   UNIFY( query, <database> )

http://www.microprolog.com/help.html
microPROLOG Syntax

Rule 1   LINE. --> FACT.
Rule 2   LINE. --> FACT IF TAIL.
Rule 3   ?- LINE. --> ?- TAIL.
Rule 4   TAIL  --> FACT FACT ... FACT
Rule 5   FACT  --> term(ARGS)
Rule 6   ARGS  --> ARG, ARG, ... ARG
Rule 7   ARG   --> term  |  VAR  |  FACT

Rule3 in Prolog.

Welcome to Reverse Engineering of Logic!

Herc