On 12/15/2018 2:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:


On Saturday, December 15, 2018, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



    On 12/15/2018 7:43 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


    On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 1:09 AM Brent Meeker
    <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:



        On 12/14/2018 7:31 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
        On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 8:43 PM Brent Meeker
        <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

            Yes, you create a whole theology around not all truths
            are provable.  But you ignore that what is false is also
            provable.  Provable is only relative to axioms.


        1. Do you agree a Turing machine will either halt or not?

        2. Do you agree that no finite set of axioms has the power
        to prove whether or not any given Turing machine will halt
        or not?

        3. What does this tell us about the relationship between
        truth, proofs, and axioms?

        What do you think it tells us.  Does it tell us that a false
        axiom will not allow proof of a false proposition?

    It tells us mathematical truth is objective and doesn't come from
    axioms. Axioms are like physical theories, we can test them and
    refute them if they lead to predictions that are demonstrably
    false. E.g., if they predict a Turing machine will not halt, but
    it does, then we can reject that axiom as an incorrect theory of
    mathematical truth.  Similarly, we might find axioms that allow
    us to prove more things than some weaker set of axioms, thereby
    building a better theory, but we have no mechanical way of doing
    this. In that way it is like doing science, and requires trial
    and error, comparing our theories with our observations, etc.

    Fine, except you've had to quailfy it as "mathematical truth",
    meaning that it is relative to the axioms defining the Turning
    machine.  Remember a Turing machine isn't a real device.

    Brent



Ahh, but diophantine equations only need integers, addition, and multiplication, and can define any computable function. Therefore the question of whether or not some diophantine equation has a solution can be made equivalent to the question of whether some Turing machine halts.  So you face this problem of getting at all the truth once you can define integers, addition and multiplication.

There's no surprise that you can't get at all true statements about a system  that is defined to be infinite.

Brent

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to