# Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof

```
On 23 Aug 2012, at 22:39, Stephen P. King wrote:```
```
```
```On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
```
Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and sequences of numbers, making the "body problem" into a problem of arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above, and thanks to the Solovay arithmetical completeness theorem.
```
```
You cannot both claim that there is a flaw, and at the same time invoke your dyslexia to justify you don't do the technical work to present it.
```Dear Bruno,

It is the body problem that is your problem.
```
```

```
No. It is the problem of all computationalists. That is the result of the work. Then I show how to translate that problem in arithmetic.
```

```
```There is no solution for it in strict immaterialism.
```
```
Proof?

```
```Immaterials cannot interact,
```
```
```
Proofs? (btw, this is not needed, we need only dreams of interaction, but then immaterial can interact, as it is obvious with comp: in the arithmetical simulations (thus truncated digitally) of the galaxies, they interact through gravitation, or you are coming up with metaphysical primary sort of material interaction which nobody has ever proved the existence.
```

```
they have nothing with which to "touch" each other. All they can do is imagine the possibility in the sense of a representation of the logical operation of "imagining the possibility of X" (a string of recursively enumerable coding the computational simulation of X). This would be fine and you do a wonderful job of dressing this up in your work, but the body problem is just another name for the concurrency problem.
```
```
It is much vaster. We have to justify appearance of space, time, force, physical constant, the quantum, etc. Concurrrency is easy to explain, compared to gravitation. But it remains hard to justify the stability if any of this. The only way to do that is in justifying some phase randomization from only the self-reference logic. Here the "p-> BDp" is a sort of arithemtical miracle, because it explains already the less trivial part.
```

```
It is the scarcity of physical resources that forces solutions to be found and this is exactly what Pratt shows us how to work out. Mutual consistency restrictions is the dual to resource availability!
```
```
My dyslexia prevents me from writing long strings of symbolic logical codes, but I can write English (and some Spanish) well enough to communicate with you and I can read and comprehend complex texts very well. ;-)
```

```
```

```
By the way, I only asked from a verbal -> written English version of your symbols strings, not a condensed explanation of it. I do appreciate what you wrote, but it was not what I was asking for.
```
G is

[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
[]p -> [][]p
[]([]p -> p) -> []p

with the rules A, A->B  /  B and A / []A

S4Grz is

[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)
[]p -> [][]p
[]([](p -> []p) -> p) -> p

with the rules A, A->B  /  B and A / []A

```
These symbols have verbal words associated with them, no? If you where to read of these sentences aloud. What English sounds would come out of your mouth?
```
?
```
It is logic. Whatever english sentence you give will be for the intended meaning, or the intended meaning of some mathematical intepretations of it. I gavce them just to illustrates a machinery. you must read
```
[](p->q)->([]p -> []q) in the follwing literal way:

box left parenthesis p implies q right parenthesis ...

It is like giving a picture of DNA molecules "ATTCAGTTAAACTCCGTA ..." .

```
In logic we don't interpret the formula. You must look at "[](p->q)- >([]p -> []q)" at a non interpreted finite molecule. And then you can look at an ference rule like A, A->B/B as an enzyme which will take two molecules, like [](p->q) and [](p->q)->([]p -> []q), and catlyse a reaction leading to ([]p -> []q).
```

```
Could those words be transcribed here for the readers of the Everything List? What word corresponds, for instance, to "->" ? Implies?
```
```
It might, and it is, depending what you mean by "implies", it can be birds and frogs in other interpretation, and it does not matter, because the machinery is build so that the reasoning will not depend from the interpretation. That is the whole what logic is about. Interpretation is defined mathematically, and provides another chapter in logic. Then in applied logic, another layer of interpretation is given, and this one can be rendered in english, but to give it before can only be confusing.
```
Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to