On May 5, 12:50 pm, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > 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 > > >https://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f2f7... > > > .... > > 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.
The fortune teller machine says...
"You Cannot Prove This Result" over and over
"You cannot leave..."
You are William Shatner addicted to the Oracle Machine
and I'm trying to argue for you not to take it's word at face value.