On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 09:40:18AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 05 Oct 2013, at 01:16, Russell Standish wrote: > > >On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 04:51:02PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> > >>Read AUDA, where you can find the mathematical definition for each > >>pronouns, based on Kleene's recursion theorem (using the Dx = "xx" > >>trick, which I promised to do in term of numbers, phi_i, W_i, etc. > >>but 99,999% will find the use of them in UDA enough clear for the > >>reasoning. Yet, I have made AUDA as I was told some scientists were > >>allergic to thought experiments, and indeed studied only AUDA (and > >>got no problem with it). > >> > > > >Hi Bruno, > > > >You meade this comment before, and I just passed over it, because it > >didn't seem that relevant to the thread. I am familiar with your AUDA > >from your Lille thesis, of course, but don't recall anywhere where you > >discuss formalisation of pronouns. > > > >Perhaps you do this in another treatment of the AUDA I haven't > >read? Or perhaps > >you have some slightly different idea in you mind that I'm missing? > >Just wondering... > > I thought I have explained this very often, but perhaps I have been > unclear, or took some understanding of Gödel 1931 for granted? > > Bp (intended for its arithmetical interpretation, thus Gödel's > beweisbar) is the third person "I"; like in I have two legs, or like > in front of my code or body (scanned by the doctor). I refer often > to it by "3-I". This is standard self-reference. > > Bp & p, is the knower, which plays the role of the first person in > AUDA. It is a solipsistic person unable to provide any definition or > name for who he is. It is the Plotinus universal soul, or the "inner > God" of the East. It is the non duplicable being which is unable to > "feel the split" in duplication experience. From his own perspective > he is not duplicable, not nameable, and not a machine (!). > > The other hypostases are variant of those above. Normally Bp & Dt > should give a first person plural, and is as much nameable, and > definable in arithmetic than the 3-I. It is really the 3-I + a > reality (Dt). > > The sensible person, in a reality is the knower + reality (Bp & p & Dt). > > OK? > > To sum up: > Bp = 3-I, > Bp & p = 1-I. > The Dt can be added, and just transform the provability into > probability (which needs ([]p -> <>p), in formal treatment). > > Bruno >
I get that Bp is the statement that I can prove p, and that Bp & p is the statement that I know p (assuming Theatetus, of course), but in both cases, I would say the pronoun "I" refers to the same entity. English, and AFAIK French, do not make a distinction between 3-I and 1-I, so this is some new terminology that you have introduced, with unclear connection to real pronouns. Why do you say they are pronouns? Cheers -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
