Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
From: Jim Burns (burns.87_at_osu.edu)
Date: 06/13/04
- Next message: James Harris: "Factoring paper is wrong"
- Previous message: Ken Pledger: "Re: favorite regular polyhedra"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 19:23:25 -0400
|-|erc wrote:
>
> "Jim Burns" <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in
> > >
> > > which it isn't. This is a tangential issue as I see it allowing
> > > disjunctions of facts as truthful. unsubstantiated_truth is not
> > > equivalent to Not_proven_false as you describe, as far as I see it.
> >
> > What I said was:
> > Either
> > unsubstantiated_truth = {"Goldbach is true", ...}
> > or
> > unsubstantiated_truth = {"Goldbach is false", ...}.
> > In either case,
> > unsubstantiated_truth != {}.
>
> read above, notice "disjunction" meaning EITHER.
>
> The set construction
> UT = {F} | {~F}
>
> contains no information, it has entropy 0, you haven't asserted
> anything.
That's right. I guess that means you cannot disagree with a
"non-assertion". Note that from that "non-assertion",
it follows that unsubstantiated_truth != {}.
[BIG snip. The rest of this is beside the point I wanted to
make, and that you apparently do not dispute. Thanks.]
Jim Burns
- Next message: James Harris: "Factoring paper is wrong"
- Previous message: Ken Pledger: "Re: favorite regular polyhedra"
- In reply to: |-|erc: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Next in thread: |-|erc: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Reply: |-|erc: "Re: Goedel - interesting problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
