On 23 Oct 2013, at 22:57, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 03:02:55PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:09:03PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 23:03, Russell Standish wrote:
In fact
On 23 Oct 2013, at 23:42, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/23/2013 5:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2013, at 19:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2013 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at
On 22 Oct 2013, at 19:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2013 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Consistency is []p ~[]~p. I was saying []p ~p, ie
On 22 Oct 2013, at 19:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2013 6:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[]p - p is correctness. It is trivially true for the machine I
consider, because they are correct by definition/choice.
Consistency is correctness on the f: []f - f. It is a very
particular case of
On 22 Oct 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:09:03PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 23:03, Russell Standish wrote:
In fact p- []p characterizes sigma_1 completeness (by a result
by
Albert Visser), and that is why to get the proba on the
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 03:02:55PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2013, at 22:50, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:09:03PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 23:03, Russell Standish wrote:
In fact p- []p characterizes sigma_1 completeness (by a
On 10/23/2013 5:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Oct 2013, at 19:01, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/22/2013 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 17:59, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 08:24, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:48:42AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
wrote:
Disclaimer: No idea if I am
On 21 Oct 2013, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Consistency is []p ~[]~p. I was saying []p ~p, ie mistaken
belief.
ISTM that Bruno equivocates and [] sometimes means believes and
On 21 Oct 2013, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Consistency is []p ~[]~p. I was saying []p ~p, ie mistaken
belief.
ISTM that Bruno equivocates and [] sometimes means believes and
On 21 Oct 2013, at 23:03, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:52:14PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 23:15, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 23:34, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/21/2013 7:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 05:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 2:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On 10/22/2013 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 20:07, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Consistency is []p ~[]~p. I was saying []p ~p, ie mistaken belief.
ISTM that Bruno equivocates
On 10/22/2013 6:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
[]p - p is correctness. It is trivially true for the machine I consider, because they
are correct by definition/choice.
Consistency is correctness on the f: []f - f. It is a very particular case of
correctness.
There are machines which are not
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 22 Oct 2013, at 03:21, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 04:48, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Disclaimer: No idea if I
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:09:03PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Oct 2013, at 23:03, Russell Standish wrote:
In fact p- []p characterizes sigma_1 completeness (by a result by
Albert Visser), and that is why to get the proba on the UD*, we use
the intensional nuance []p t (= proba)
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Consistency is []p ~[]~p. I was saying []p ~p, ie mistaken belief.
ISTM that Bruno equivocates and [] sometimes means believes and sometimes
provable.
And I'm doing the same. It's not such an issue - a mathematician will
only
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:48:42AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
Disclaimer: No idea if I am even on the same planet on which this
discussion is taking place. So pardon my questions and confusions:
You and me both - we're all students here :).
I'm just rather doubtful about an
On 20 Oct 2013, at 23:15, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:52:41AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We have always that [o]p - [o][o]p (like we have also always
On 20 Oct 2013, at 21:03, John Mikes wrote:
Brent: I like to write insted of we know - we THINK we know and
it goes further: Bruno's provable' - in many cases - applies
evidences (to 'prove') from conventional science (reductionist
figments) we still THINK we know.
Not when doing
On 21 Oct 2013, at 05:09, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 2:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:52:41AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We have always that [o]p
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Consistency is []p ~[]~p. I was saying []p ~p, ie mistaken belief.
ISTM that Bruno equivocates and [] sometimes means believes and sometimes
provable.
And I'm doing the same. It's not
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:07:04AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/20/2013 11:12 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:09:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Consistency is []p ~[]~p. I was saying []p ~p, ie mistaken belief.
ISTM that Bruno equivocates and [] sometimes means believes
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 03:52:14PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 23:15, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:01, Russell Standish wrote:
Obviously, one cannot prove []p p, for very many
Bruno wrote
*Not when doing science. (pseudo-science and pseudo-religion only).*
*
*
Science as applied to the so far learned fraction of the infinite
complexity? If there ever was a 'pseudo-science' - that is one (I mean the
conventional pretension used for those ALMOST perfect technicalities
On 22 October 2013 10:51, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
About 17? I am no mathematician, so a fantasy of math-systems is free to
me. I figure a dynamic number-world flipping between series of its own
integers, like the base of 'your' arithmetic and another one like
expressable as
1.7,
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 03:21:48AM +0200, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
[](p - ~[]p) - [](p - ~[]f) Gödel fixed point
[](p = [] ¬p) = [](p= []⊥)
Yes, that's the kind of thing I think we're talking about.
Talk
On 10/19/2013 9:21 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:16 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Bruno seems to equate know with provable and true.
I'm not sure that is precise. To me, Bruno's use mostly mirrors the use in
On 20 Oct 2013, at 00:08, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:17:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2013, at 11:51, Russell Standish wrote:
I understand Bp can be read as I can prove p, and Bpp as
I know
p. But in the case, the difference between Bp and Bpp is
On 10/19/2013 11:38 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
What
I still get stuck on is that we may know many things, but the only
things we can know we know are essentially private things things, such
as the fact that we are conscious, or what the colour red seems like
to us.
Are you leaving out the axioms
On 20 Oct 2013, at 00:48, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 03:16:52PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Bruno seems to equate know with provable and true. So we know
that 17 is prime. In fact we *know* infinitely many theorems that
are provable, but which no one will ever prove - which
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:52:41AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We have always that [o]p - [o][o]p (like we have also always that
[]p - [][]p)
There may be things we can prove, but about which we are in fact mistaken, ie
[]p -p
Obviously, one cannot prove []p p, for very many
On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:52:41AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We have always that [o]p - [o][o]p (like we have also always that
[]p - [][]p)
There may be things we can prove, but about which we are in fact
mistaken, ie
[]p -p
That
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:52:41AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We have always that [o]p - [o][o]p (like we have also always that
[]p - [][]p)
There may be things we
Disclaimer: No idea if I am even on the same planet on which this
discussion is taking place. So pardon my questions and confusions:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013,
On 10/20/2013 2:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 06:22:15PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Oct 2013, at 12:01, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 08:52:41AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We have always that [o]p - [o][o]p (like we have also always that
On 10/19/2013 3:08 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:17:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2013, at 11:51, Russell Standish wrote:
I understand Bp can be read as I can prove p, and Bpp as
I know
p. But in the case, the difference between Bp and Bpp is
entirely in
On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 03:16:52PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Bruno seems to equate know with provable and true. So we know
that 17 is prime. In fact we *know* infinitely many theorems that
are provable, but which no one will ever prove - which seems like a
strange meaning of know.
I agree
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 12:16 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Bruno seems to equate know with provable and true.
I'm not sure that is precise. To me, Bruno's use mostly mirrors the use in
the Plato dialogues as knowledge is true belief accounted for. So X knows
p is true iff: p is
On 09 Oct 2013, at 22:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/9/2013 12:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/8/2013 2:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:20:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Oct 2013, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:
On 08 Oct 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/8/2013 2:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:20:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Oct 2013, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:
...
and Bpp as he knows p, so the person order of
the pronoun is also not relevant.
Yes,
On 10/9/2013 12:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2013, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/8/2013 2:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:20:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Oct 2013, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:
...
and Bpp as he knows p, so the person
Thanks for this response. It'll take me a while to digest, but I'll
get back with the inevitable questions :).
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:17:17PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Oct 2013, at 11:51, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:20:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:20:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Oct 2013, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:
Unfortunately, the thread about AUDA and its relation to pronouncs got
mixed up with another thread, and thus got delete on my computer.
Picking up from where we left off, I'm
On 08 Oct 2013, at 11:51, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:20:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Oct 2013, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:
Unfortunately, the thread about AUDA and its relation to pronouncs
got
mixed up with another thread, and thus got delete on
On 10/8/2013 2:51 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:20:14AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Oct 2013, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:
...
and Bpp as he knows p, so the person order of
the pronoun is also not relevant.
Yes, you can read that in that way, but you get
On 10/6/2013 10:36 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Unfortunately, the thread about AUDA and its relation to pronouncs got
mixed up with another thread, and thus got delete on my computer.
Picking up from where we left off, I'm still trying to see the
relationship between Bp, Bpp, 1-I, 3-I and the
On 07 Oct 2013, at 07:36, Russell Standish wrote:
Unfortunately, the thread about AUDA and its relation to pronouncs got
mixed up with another thread, and thus got delete on my computer.
Picking up from where we left off, I'm still trying to see the
relationship between Bp, Bpp, 1-I, 3-I and
On 07 Oct 2013, at 10:20, Bruno Marchal wrote (to Russell):
Yes, you can read that in that way, but you get only the 3-view of
the 1-view.
I meant: you get only the 3-view ON the 1-view.
Not of.
Sorry,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because
Unfortunately, the thread about AUDA and its relation to pronouncs got
mixed up with another thread, and thus got delete on my computer.
Picking up from where we left off, I'm still trying to see the
relationship between Bp, Bpp, 1-I, 3-I and the plain ordinary I
pronoun in English.
I understand
50 matches
Mail list logo
