/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13782219

195KiB, 718x575, automated theorem proving.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 15:06:02 2021 No.13782219 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13782233 >>13782234 >>13782344 >>13783051 >>13783152

Ah yes. Now I understand it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 15:12:24 No.13782233 Report

Quoted By: >>13782243 >>13782314 >>13782350

>>13782219
What text is this from? Reals like a bunch of shitty opinions.

The principle of Explosion is problematic in logic, but not in arithmetic.
The assertion that 7 being even implies 7+2 being even is not
>disconcerning

>but in mathematics, we want every sentence to have an ambiguous truth value
No we don't.
To know which truth values there are is especially irrelevant in arithmetic, where Peano arithmetic easily embeds into Heyting arithmetic.

Material implication is a meme, but not for reason the author lists.
Related
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradoxes_of_material_implication
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 15:12:33 No.13782234 Report

Quoted By: >>13782243

>>13782219
Like, this person has a PhD when they publish a book it includes this rambling nonsense. Does he not understand it well enough to present the point concisely?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 15:15:58 No.13782243 Report

Quoted By: >>13782271 >>13782314

>>13782233
>>13782234
It's Plato you worthless, retarded, salad-dodging STEMniggers.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 15:25:17 No.13782271 Report

Quoted By:

>>13782243
Are you retarded? This is First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving by Literally Who. The x+2 argument and premise is all sound. Don't know what this CSfag is on about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 15:49:26 No.13782314 Report

Quoted By:

>>13782233
It's imprecisely defined and unrigorous. He also adds irrelevant comments about specifics of the English language. He expects me to infer and intuit an actual rigorous meaning of what he's saying, instead of saying something that doesn't rely completely on appealing to a human mind. Are you going supposed to cite this in a scientific paper? I don't get how you would implement it in a Turing machine.

>>13782243
I even tried searching "material sense" in quotes and nothing comes up. He doesn't define the term either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 16:00:03 No.13782344 Report

Quoted By: >>13782385

>>13782219
What is the purpose of this thread? The explanation is crystal-clear, and the subject matter is trivial.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 16:01:55 No.13782350 Report

Quoted By: >>13782355

>>13782233
>If natural language conditionals were understood in the same way, that would mean that the sentence "If the Nazis won World War Two, everybody would be happy" is true. Given that such problematic consequences follow from a seemingly correct assumption about logic, they are called paradoxes.
People still link to this SJW-infested dump...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 16:05:22 No.13782355 Report

Quoted By: >>13782414 >>13782586

>>13782350
Look at this triggered nazi snowflake and laugh

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 16:15:09 No.13782385 Report

Quoted By: >>13782802 >>13783059

>>13782344
>The explanation is crystal-clear,
No it isn't. How does the statement "If X is true, then Y is true" have an unambiguous truth value?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 16:26:43 No.13782414 Report

Quoted By:

>>13782355
don't you have some hormone blockers to inject yourself with tranny?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 17:11:34 No.13782586 Report

Quoted By:

>>13782355
>calls people triggered
>calls people snowflake
you have become what you hate

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 18:24:57 No.13782802 Report

Quoted By:

>>13782385
by english language

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 19:48:13 No.13783051 Report

Quoted By:

>>13782219
It's not well written but it makes sense. Its assuming that you are stuck in a frame of thinking where you see a implies b and automatically assume a is true. Some people do get hung up this this so it needs to be addressed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 19:50:47 No.13783059 Report

Quoted By: >>13783381

>>13782385
>How does the statement "If X is true, then Y is true" have an unambiguous truth value?
It literally gives you an example: "If X is even, then X + 2 is even" -- that's unambiguously true.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 20:22:39 No.13783152 Report

Quoted By: >>13783163

>>13782219
Nonsense. "If 7 is even then 7+2 is even" is simply a true statement. Also the first two sentences of the text are false, the third is true, and all after the third are either false or meaningless. I hope this garbage wasn't actually published anywhere.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 20:25:33 No.13783163 Report

Quoted By: >>13783190

>>13783152
It's First-Order Logic and Automated Theorem Proving by Melvin Fitting. On page 2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 20:35:51 No.13783190 Report

Quoted By: >>13783381

>>13783163
Google tells me that's a "graduate" text in computer science. Every sentence except the third is false in terms of one human communicating with another in English (or in math). I assume the point of the book then is that computers are dense/ overliteral?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 21:36:12 No.13783381 Report

Quoted By: >>13783429 >>13783468

>>13783190
You know, you can read it for free if you know what site to use for books / textbooks

>>13783059
But.. "X is true then Y is true" is just a statement saying that if one is true, the other is true. To say that statement itself is either true or false is meaningless

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 21:55:18 No.13783429 Report

Quoted By:

>>13783381
No thanks. I'm not interested in trying to teach a computer to think like a human. It's not practical: too much like herding cats. The excerpt as I said is also pure bullshit except for one sentence, so I assume the rest of the book is equally meaningless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 22:11:16 No.13783468 Report

Quoted By: >>13783637

>>13783381
>To say that statement itself is either true or false is meaningless
Nope, "if X is true then Y is true" is itself true if Y is always true when X is true or false if Y isn't always true when X is true. In fact, that statement itself can never not be either true or false.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 23:31:20 No.13783637 Report

Quoted By: >>13783657

>>13783468
>"if X is true then Y is true" is itself true if Y is always true
In other words, it is conditionally true. It goes to true after calculation "if" something else. It is not a statement of setting a variable to being true for the calculation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 23:43:11 No.13783657 Report

Quoted By: >>13783666

>>13783637
Your other words are wrong. The statement is either true or false. Nothing ever changes. It's never "maybe true or maybe false."

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 23:46:53 No.13783666 Report

Quoted By: >>13783677

>>13783657
>either true or false.
I don't get it. It would be true or false based on something else. So, if you say the statement alone, there's nothing else to be true or false based on

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 23 Oct 2021 23:54:29 No.13783677 Report

Quoted By: >>13783699

>>13783666
The statement alone is always true if Y is always true when X is true or false if Y isn't always true when X is true. Your not having enough information to know whether the statement is true or false doesn't mean that the statement itself isn't already true or false.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:03:44 No.13783699 Report

Quoted By: >>13783714

>>13783677
>Your not having enough information to know whether the statement is true or false
What is the context? Is there a fairy in the turing machine that sets values of variables when I'm not looking? I thought it's just a system that I'm using, not a thing where there is information for me to not know.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:08:19 No.13783714 Report

Quoted By: >>13783728

>>13783699
How can you not not know some information? Knowing every information doesn't sound very "turing" to me.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:11:33 No.13783728 Report

Quoted By: >>13783748

>>13783714
>Knowing every information doesn't sound very "turing" to me.
If I'm just implementing logic in a machine made of atoms, or a Turing machine or whatever, obviously I know everything about the system I'm working with since I made it/specified all the information about it. There's nothing about it I didn't write. Where else did the information come from?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:18:51 No.13783748 Report

Quoted By: >>13783790 >>13783816

>>13783728
What information? The information to know whether your statement is true or false? Obviously that information is not in your system as you've described it. So you made a system that can't tell you everything. That's normal. You can't make a Turing machine that can tell you everything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:39:43 No.13783790 Report

Quoted By: >>13783854

>>13783748
>So you made a system that can't tell you everything.
I'm not trying to infer anything about the outside world. I thought I'm supposed to know the state of the system. Like I know the state of a calculator I've made

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 00:51:32 No.13783816 Report

Quoted By: >>13783854

>>13783748
In other words, how could something be indeterminate about a system I wrote down on a piece of paper?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 01:14:34 No.13783854 Report

Quoted By: >>13783879 >>13783906

>>13783790
>>13783816
Consider the statement "if x is odd then x is not a perfect number." The statement is either true or false, right now. Maybe the information we need, to know whether it's true or false, doesn't exist in our system. Maybe we'll never know. That doesn't cause the statement to be neither true nor false. It's obviously either true or false. And there's nothing about the other statement "if X is true then Y is true" that should allow us to treat it any differently.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 01:35:30 No.13783879 Report

Quoted By: >>13783898

>>13783854
>"if x is odd then x is not a perfect number."
That can be proven to be true or false based on axioms of number theory. The truth value of "A implies B" hasn't been implicitly defined. There is no value that follows from any axioms because I haven't added any axioms that would allow a proof that it is either true or false? Also the context of A implies B being just a logical connective thing instead of something that has a truth value itself I don't get....

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 01:47:12 No.13783898 Report

Quoted By:

>>13783879
>That can be proven to be true or false based on axioms of number theory.
Funny, your statement above is also either true or false, right now, but we don't know which is it. I'm not following your line of thought about "A implies B," what you're trying to say about it, and how that relates to "if X is true then Y is true"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 24 Oct 2021 01:55:43 No.13783906 Report

Quoted By:

>>13783854
When not just say the intersection of the odd numbers and the perfect numbers is empty
Implication removed, set theory FTW

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches