Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
From: |-|erc (gotcha_at_beauty.com)
Date: 06/10/04
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: simple Godel proof"
- In reply to: Acid Pooh: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Next in thread: Acid Pooh: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Reply: Acid Pooh: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:17:33 GMT
> > Truth is what's proven. An interpreter is a proof checker.
> >
>
> Interestingly, Godel would have agreed with you before he came up with
> his result. He was completely adverse to using model-theoretic
> methods in logic because of the circularity involved in using naive
> set theory to formulate it. If you look at Godel's own proof, it is
> done completely proof theoretically--there is no talk of models or
> interpretations. He began his program to *prove* that everything
> which is true is provable, but failed spectacularly--cementing his
> importance in the subject forever. Your ignorance has been betrayed
> yet again.
Godel was a 3rd rate century old programmer, why do you put faith
on AI in his hands? He tried, he failed.... aleyula.
> Why are *you* allowed to *interpret* sentences and computers can't?
> >
>
> Do you even know what an interpretation is? An interpretation is a
> function which maps objects and predicates (hence sentences) to truth
> values. There is no infinitive verb "to interpret" in this context.
> Computers don't interpret, in this sense, and neither do people. Both
> a person and a computer can evaluate the function to get a truth
> value, and they'll get the same result. I would explain the gritty
> details, but you would just ignore them anyways. In any event, your
> ignorance has been betrayed again.
>
fair enough distinction, but how did you *interpret* a value into the godel statement?
where did you pull this TRUE from?
Herc
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is incorrectly formed"
- Previous message: |-|erc: "Re: simple Godel proof"
- In reply to: Acid Pooh: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Next in thread: Acid Pooh: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Reply: Acid Pooh: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
