Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: mathematical infinite as a matter of method
Replies: 25   Last Post: May 4, 2013 11:24 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 fom Posts: 1,968 Registered: 12/4/12
Re: mathematical infinite as a matter of method
Posted: May 4, 2013 10:50 PM

On 5/4/2013 8:29 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
> On May 5, 10:57 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>> On 5/4/2013 7:30 PM, Graham Cooper wrote:
>>
>>
>>

>>> That Paradigm is not even used with a valid set theory
>>
>> I am rather unconcerned with the
>> pretend mathematics that occurs in
>> computation where thousands of real
>> mathematical results are involved
>> prior to the compilation of a "hello
>> world" program.
>>
>> I wish I knew more about prolog in order
>> to counter your statements appropriately.
>>
>> But, I do not.
>>
>> I am curious, however, about the notion
>> of "valid set theory".
>>

>

I take it that you are encouraging me
to learn some prolog.

> Starting with MODUS PONENS
> you come across the need to MATCH 1 predicate
> from the LHS (or RHS) of an inference rule
> to existing theorems.
>
> This is the algorithm UNIFY( f1(a,b,c) , f2(c,d,e) ) => TRUE/FALSE
>
> From here you gain HORN CLAUSES
>
> p(a,b,c,d)
> p(a,b,c,d) <- CLAUSE & CLAUSE & CLAUSE
>
> where the TAIL predicates are recursively matched also
> down to a raw base fact (theorem) with no CLAUSES.
>
> It is widely believed that HORN CLAUSES can only perform
> a subset of LOGIC due to finite negation by exhaustion, (no NOT).
>
> a raw PROLOG INTERPRETER contains nothing
> more than the UNIFY algorithm.
>
> WHY PROLOG WILL DICTATE THE FUTURE OF LOGIC THEORY
> JAN 1 Graham Cooper
>
>
>
> ....

It looks interesting. The logic programming does not use
a classical logic. I agree with that. I know a little about
both defeasible reasoning and autoepistemic logics. However,
even if such logics are "correct", that correctness does not
account for the classical problems in mathematics.

In other words, there is a long history of one "I don't believe
that!" followed by another. So many, in fact, that everyone
has talked themselves into a circle.

I actually understand some of your objections even if I
do not necessarily agree. But, think about what my sentences
actually say: everyone "purports" a non-circular foundation, but,
the predicates can be formulated contrary to that purport.

So, it is interesting how your George Greene can tell your Mitch
that interpretations are irrelevant while simultaneously saying
elsewhere how Mitch's particular interpretations are wrong.

In a similar vein, those purporting non-circularity only see that
what I have done is wrong without recognizing that what I have
done is the appropriate criticism of their claimed purport and
the philosophy upon which it is grounded.

That has nothing to do with what goes on in computers. I actually
envy you. During the years that I had a computer career I
enjoyed it greatly. In spite of my apparent lack of ability
in these newsgroups, I am quite talented. It is a matter of
sharpness that comes with day-to-day use of skills that I have
lost.

The William Shatner was fun. I think some of those episodes
must have been hour-long versions. Those have not been
shown in my area for a long, long time. So I did not recognize
them. But, I always liked the devil bobblehead fortune teller.

Thanks.

Date Subject Author
4/21/13 fom
4/21/13 Virgil
5/2/13 Hercules ofZeus
5/2/13 fom
5/2/13 Virgil
5/3/13 Graham Cooper
5/3/13 fom
5/3/13 Brian Q. Hutchings
5/3/13 Graham Cooper
5/3/13 fom
5/3/13 Graham Cooper
5/3/13 fom
5/3/13 fom
5/4/13 Graham Cooper
5/3/13 Graham Cooper
5/3/13 fom
5/3/13 Graham Cooper
5/4/13 fom
5/4/13 Graham Cooper
5/4/13 fom
5/4/13 Graham Cooper
5/4/13 fom
5/4/13 Graham Cooper
5/4/13 fom
5/4/13 Graham Cooper
5/3/13 Graham Cooper