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 hpco...@hpcoders.com.au 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
