*Russell,* *Sounds plausible that self-aware systems can manage this. I'd like to see this done as a formal system though, as I have a natural mistrust of handwaving arguments! *
I like it too :). I think the computational view would help in construction. *Jesse, I definitely don't think the two systems could be complete, since (handwavey argument follows) if you have two theorem-proving algorithms A and B, it's trivial to just create a new algorithm that prints out the theorems that either A or B could print out, and incompleteness should apply to this too* ** They're not independent systems.putting that aside, I can't find the correspondence to my argument. It would be nice if you could clarify your point.* * * * *Brent,* *But doesn't that depend on having adopted rules of inference and values, i.e. "the sentence is either true or false". Why shouldn't we suppose that self-referential sentences can have other values or that your informal reasoning above is a proof and hence there is contradiction* Actually this is the main advantage of making such loop. you're right only when we're talking about ONE system and that system has concluded the truth of such statement. But it can be avoided by two or more systems. They are reliable in each other's view, and have statements for that. maybe that is the only (symmetric!) difference of those systems. Except for that, both(all) are the same. Mohsen Ravanbakhsh --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
