- Eliminating Undecidability and Incompleteness in Formal Systems (Prolog already does this) - 12 Updates
- "Modern C++ Won't Save Us" by alex_gaynor - 3 Updates
- online switch case generator for strings - 2 Updates
- std::shared_ptr thread-safety - 1 Update
- Converting formal proofs to sound deductive inference Version(7) - 1 Update
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: May 01 07:50AM -0500 On 5/1/2019 5:21 AM, bert wrote: >> What if I am a crank and I am correct? > Then other distribution and publicity routes > would be more appropriate for your theories. I have to first get someone to consider the possibility that I am correct so that they can test my actual reasoning and thus prove that I am correct. Because my result is unbelievable I am simply dismissed out-of-hand. In sound deductive inference there is: [a connected sequence of valid deductions from true premises to a true conclusion]. If we simply construe Axioms as expressions of language having the semantic property of Boolean true this would anchor the syntax of formal proofs to the semantics of Boolean values. Now we have: [Deductively Sound Formal Proofs] True(x) ↔ (⊢x) [a connected sequence of inference from axioms to a true consequence]. AKA the same universal truth predicate that Tarski "proved" was impossible. he 1936 Tarski Undefinability Proof http://liarparadox.org/Tarski_Proof_275_276.pdf -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: May 01 09:29AM -0500 On 5/1/2019 7:53 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: >> Because my result is unbelievable I am simply dismissed out-of-hand. > Or you could show us a non-trivial formal system that is both consistent > and complete. I just did and you trimmed it from your reply. Go back to my message and analyze the part that you trimmed point-by-point. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: May 01 05:56PM +0200 Is this a second "Amine Moulay Ramdane"? According to his manic posting-frequency he might be. |
| Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>: May 01 10:48AM -0700 peteolcott <Here@Home> writes: [...] One last try. Pete, as far as I can tell you have written nothing relevant to C, C++, or Lisp. Please stop posting in comp.lang.{c,c++,lisp}. (I would have emailed you if you had provided a valid email address.) I do not intend to post again in this thread. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst> Will write code for food. void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */ |
| Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com>: May 01 08:25PM +0200 Am 01.05.2019 um 19:48 schrieb Keith Thompson: > C, C++, or Lisp. Please stop posting in comp.lang.{c,c++,lisp}. > (I would have emailed you if you had provided a valid email address.) > I do not intend to post again in this thread. Look at this thread - he seems to be manic. Arguing is a waste of time here. |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: May 01 01:53PM -0500 On 5/1/2019 11:37 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: >> Go back to my message and analyze the part that you trimmed point-by-point. > Well, if I trimmed it, it was trivial… > Could I have missed arithmetic? That is exactly what I mean by dismissed out-of-hand If Axioms are defined as expressions of language having the semantic property of Boolean true then this: True(x) ↔ (⊢x) is the universal truth predicate that Tarski "proved" was impossible. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: May 01 02:01PM -0500 On 5/1/2019 12:48 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > C, C++, or Lisp. Please stop posting in comp.lang.{c,c++,lisp}. > (I would have emailed you if you had provided a valid email address.) > I do not intend to post again in this thread. You have been proven to be incorrect in that people continue to respond. It is most relevant to Prolog, it is next most relevant to Lisp because Lisp is an AI language. I might drop C++, and C off the list of cross-posts. If Axioms are defined as expressions of language having the semantic property of Boolean true then this: True(x) ↔ (⊢x) is the universal truth predicate that Tarski "proved" was impossible. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: May 01 03:01PM -0500 On 5/1/2019 1:25 PM, Bonita Montero wrote: >> I do not intend to post again in this thread. > Look at this thread - he seems to be manic. > Arguing is a waste of time here. I check each group individually. If respondent were to trim the other group form their response I would have beet feedback regrading which groups are relevant. Although I am not manic I am very excited that I completed my 22 year 12,000 hour research project with a formalization of the the notion of True, thus refuting Tarski: If Axioms are defined as expressions of language having the semantic property of Boolean true then this: True(x) ↔ (⊢x) is the universal truth predicate that Tarski "proved" was impossible. ===================================================================== The Refutation of Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof is complete. This refutation applies to the other conventional (self-referential) Halting Problem proofs. This algorithm was completed December 13th 2018 7:00PM Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof (1993) with Turing Machines H and Ĥ. http://liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_318-319).pdf Every detail of the design of virtual machines implementing the Peter Linz H deciding halting for the Peter Linz input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ) is complete. The only step remaining is the C++ encoding of the UTM that executes these virtual machine descriptions. When this last step is complete I will provide the full execution trace of H actually deciding halting for input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). The only reason that this is possible is a key undiscovered detail that no one noticed for 81 years. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: May 01 03:10PM -0500 On 4/27/2019 1:26 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > provable; they are declared true as part of the basis of the system. > You're really still not brushed up on even a second year university > level understanding of this stuff. [Deductively Sound Formal Proofs] If Axioms are defined as expressions of language having the semantic property of Boolean true then this: True(x) ↔ (⊢x) is the universal truth predicate that Tarski "proved" was impossible. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: May 01 03:14PM -0500 On 5/1/2019 12:48 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > C, C++, or Lisp. Please stop posting in comp.lang.{c,c++,lisp}. > (I would have emailed you if you had provided a valid email address.) > I do not intend to post again in this thread. The Refutation of Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof is complete. This refutation applies to the other conventional (self-referential) Halting Problem proofs. This algorithm was completed December 13th 2018 7:00PM Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof (1993) with Turing Machines H and Ĥ. http://liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_318-319).pdf Every detail of the encoding of virtual machines implementing the Peter Linz H deciding halting for the Peter Linz input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ) is complete. The only step remaining is the C++ encoding of the UTM that executes these virtual machine descriptions. When this last step is complete I will provide the full execution trace of H actually deciding halting for input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). The only reason that this is possible is a key undiscovered detail that no one noticed for 81 more than eight decades. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: May 01 11:28PM +0200 On 01/05/2019 21:01, peteolcott wrote: > respond. It is most relevant to Prolog, it is next most relevant > to Lisp because Lisp is an AI language. I might drop C++, and C > off the list of cross-posts. Please do drop C and C++ groups. I can't answer for prolog or lisp groups, as I do not follow these. But I note that everyone else in your threads - baring those like me who are complaining - has dropped the C and C++ groups. Thus all we see are endless posts from you, apparently replying to yourself, and with no content of any interest to our groups. It may be that you have discovered some important result in formal systems, but we in the C and C++ groups are not interested. (If anyone from these groups disagrees with me, please say so.) |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: May 01 04:44PM -0500 On 5/1/2019 4:28 PM, David Brown wrote: > Please do drop C and C++ groups. I can't answer for prolog or lisp groups, as I do not follow these. But I note that everyone else in your threads - baring those like me who are complaining - has dropped the C and C++ groups. Thus all we see are endless > posts from you, apparently replying to yourself, and with no content of any interest to our groups. It may be that you have discovered some important result in formal systems, but we in the C and C++ groups are not interested. (If anyone from these > groups disagrees with me, please say so.) I used to talk about this on comp.theory and then comp.theory died: The Refutation of Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof is complete. This refutation applies to the other conventional (self-referential) Halting Problem proofs. This algorithm was completed December 13th 2018 7:00PM Peter Linz Halting Problem Proof (1993) with Turing Machines H and Ĥ. http://liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_318-319).pdf Every detail of the encoding of virtual machines implementing the Peter Linz H deciding halting for the Peter Linz input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ) is complete. The only step remaining is the C++ encoding of the UTM that executes these virtual machine descriptions. When this last step is complete I will provide the full execution trace of H actually deciding halting for input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). The only reason that this is possible is a key undiscovered detail that no one noticed for 81 more than eight decades. -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: May 01 11:51AM +1200 On 01/05/2019 10:49, Richard wrote: > The days of the one language programmer are long gone, if they were > ever even here in the first place. I'm sure there plenty of well remunerated COBOL programmers enjoying a happy retirement :) -- Ian |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Apr 30 08:09PM -0700 On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 2:30:43 AM UTC-5, Öö Tiib wrote: > any sense. Python for example performs about 30 times > worse than C++ (in my tests) and C# performs about 4 > times worse. What about Java? I guess it's a little faster than C#. With C++ and Python gradually getting better, maybe there will be some squeeze on C# and Java. I think Java is more of a house of cards than C++. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - In G-d we trust. http://webEbenezer.net |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 01 01:33AM -0700 On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 01:49:56 UTC+3, Richard wrote: > standard as "evidence" that C++ is too complicated, but they forget > that the size of the Java standard is comparable. It's a silly > argument. I had a friend who wrote book-keeping programs in FoxPro for DOS for little companies. When FoxPro for Windows came out 1993 I asked if he is going to upgrade he said no, he is old man and he can never learn that all. And so the FoxPro died off. :) Most general purpose languages are actually in very similar weight category. There are no good ways out of it. Language that refers too lot at other standards will so have pile of (separately evolving) dependencies. Language that leaves too lot of vital aspects up to implementations will have implementations that extend the language in mutually exclusive manner. Language that nails it down what may be written in it will become narrowly special purpose. And so Common Lisp (with its relatively short standard ANSI X3.226:1994) is no way more pleasant to use nor to translate between dialects than C++. |
| woodbrian77@gmail.com: Apr 30 06:15PM -0700 On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:03:37 PM UTC-5, Thiago Adams wrote: > } > I created an simple online generator for this. > http://thradams.com/switchgenerator.html Best wishes for this. When I started with on-line code generation, I had a web interface also. Eventually I was able to develop a command line interface: https://github.com/Ebenezer-group/onwards . You are welcome to use code/ideas from there if you decide to further automate things. For example, users could contact your site via their build process without having to go to your site and click anything or copy/paste anything. Brian Ebenezer Enterprises - Enjoying programming again. http://webEbenezer.net |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 01 12:32AM -0700 On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:34:58 UTC+3, Bart wrote: > another spate of posts full of religious crap? You seem to like lighting > the touch-paper. > Just let it go. Bart, you are often searching apricots from apple tree. Just let it go. |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: May 01 12:22AM -0700 On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 15:09:34 UTC+3, Bonita Montero wrote: > to the control-block and then to the data itself would disable > out-of-order-execution, i.e. operations on the data would be > preceded by two in-order loads. Yes, I mixed it up. Thanks for pointing it out. |
| peteolcott <Here@Home>: Apr 30 08:39PM -0500 In sound deductive inference there is: [a connected sequence of valid deductions from true premises to a true conclusion]. If we simply construe Axioms as expressions of language having the semantic property of Boolean true this would anchor the syntax of formal proofs to the semantics of Boolean values. Now we have: [Deductively Sound Formal Proofs] ---- True(x) ↔ (⊢x) [a connected sequence of inference from axioms to a true consequence]. AKA the universal truth predicate that Tarski "proved" could not exist. Tarski Undefinability Proof http://liarparadox.org/Tarski_Proof_275_276.pdf -- Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott All rights reserved "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment