Mark, Thank you, that clarifies somewhat.
But, *my* answer to *your* question would seem to depend on what you mean when you say "fully defined". Under the classical interpretation, yes: the question is fully defined, so it is a "pi question". Under the constructivist interpretation, no: the question is not fully defined, so it is a "cat question". Numbers can be fully defined in the classical sense, but not in the constructivist sense. So, when you say "fully defined question", do you mean a question for which all answers are stipulated by logical necessity (classical), or logical deduction (constructivist)? --Abram Demski On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> In that case, shouldn't >> you agree with the classical perspective on Godelian incompleteness, >> since Godel's incompleteness theorem is about mathematical systems? > > It depends. Are you asking me a fully defined question within the current > axioms of what you call mathematical systems (i.e. a pi question) or a cat > question (which could *eventually* be defined by some massive extensions to > your mathematical systems but which isn't currently defined in what you're > calling mathematical systems)? > > Saying that Gödel is about mathematical systems is not saying that it's not > about cat-including systems. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Abram Demski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 12:06 PM > Subject: Re: [agi] constructivist issues > > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
