Re: Re: Arithmetic as true constructions of a fictional leggo set

2012-12-25 Thread Roger Clough
On 24 Dec 2012, at 15:35, Roger Clough wrote:  


ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal   

It helps me if I can understand arithmetic as true   
constructions of a fictional leggo set.  


BRUNO: Why fictional? Immaterial OK, but ffictional?  


ROGER: Sorry, fictional was the wrong word, it just came to mind but was wrong. 
  
Immaterial is right. 

(from before) 
>From what you say, the natural numbers and + and * (nn+*).  


BRUNO: What is (nn+*)?  


ROGER: By (nn+*) I meant the natural numbers and + and *  


(from before)  

are not a priori members of Platonia (if indeed that makes  
sense anyway).   


BRUNO: They are. Either as basic citizens, or as existing object if we start  
with a universal system different from arithmetic, but in all  
case all truth about all digital machines are a priori members in all Platonia 
rich enough for comp.  


ROGER: OK, I misunderstood what you said previously. 


(from before) 
They can simply be invoked and used   
as needed, as long as they don't produce contradictions.  


BRUNO: Alas, after G?el that is not enough. In arithmetic you can depart  
a lot from truth, and still be consistent.  


ROGER: (from before) 

That being the case, don't you need to add =, - ,  and   
/ to the Leggo set ? Then we have (nn+-*/=).  


BRUNO: "= " is there. But "-" and all other computable function and programs  
can be defined from the axioms I gave, + a very small amount of logical axioms. 
 
If you want I can give explicit presentation(s) some day.  

ROGER: Thanks, but right now I am already so far behind. 

I wonder if somebody could derive string theory from this set.   


BRUNO: Trivially, in a weak sense of "string theory".  
Non trivially, in the stronger sense as deriving string theory,  
and only string theory from comp. That should be the case if  
string theory is the ultimate correct theory of the physical.  


ROGER: Then we might say that the universe is an arithmetic construction.   
Probably an absurd idea.  


Actually yes. As comp implies that physics, although derivable in arithmetic + 
comp,  
is not an arithmetical construction. We already know that arithmetical truth  
is not an arithmetical notion, so this should not be so astonishing.  


ROGER: (From before)  
Hi Bruno Marchal

No doubt you are right, except that the brain is physical,   
while, as I understand it, a UTM is mental.   


BRUNO: But the physical is mental, or immaterial, with comp. So, no problem :)  


I have to go for prepare Xmas, I have a lot of nephews and little nephews ...  


Happy Xmas to you Roger, and to everyone,  


Bruno  

-- 





[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]   
12/24/2012   
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen   

- Receiving the following content -   
From: Bruno Marchal   
Receiver: everything-list   
Time: 2012-12-23, 09:17:09   
Subject: Re: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No.   




On 22 Dec 2012, at 17:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:   




Hi Bruno,   

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Roger Clough wrote:   



> The infinite set of natural numbers is not stored on anything,   


Which causes no problem because there is not a infinite number of anything in 
the observable universe, probably not even points in space.   



Perhaps, we don't know.   
It causes no problem because natural numbers does not have to be stored a 
priori. Only when universal machine want to use them.   




Why do the natural numbers exist?   




We cannot know that.   


Precisely, if you assume the natural numbers, you can prove that you cannot 
derived the existence of the natural number and their + and * laws, in *any* 
theory which does not assume them, or does not assume something equivalent.   


That is why it is a good reason to start with them (or equivalent).   


Somehow, the natural numbers, with addition and multiplication, are necessarily 
"mysterious".   


With the natural numbers and + and *, you can prove the existence of all 
universal machines, and vice versa, if you assume any other universal system 
(like the combinators K, S (K K), (K S), ...) you can prove the existence of 
the natural numbers and their laws.   


We have to assume at least one universal system, and I chose arithmetic because 
it is the simpler one. The problem is that the proof of its universality will 
be difficult, but at least it can be found in good mathematical logic textbook, 
like Mendelson or Kleene, etc.   


Bruno   










--   
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.   
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.   



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



--   
You received this message because you 

Re: Arithmetic as true constructions of a fictional leggo set

2012-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 24 Dec 2012, at 15:35, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

It helps me if I can understand arithmetic as true
constructions of a fictional leggo set.


Why fictional? Immaterial OK, but ffictional?




From what you say, the natural numbers and + and * (nn+*).


What is (nn+*)?




are not a priori members of Platonia (if indeed that makes
sense anyway).


They are. Either as basic citizens, or as existing object if we start  
with a universal system different from arithmetic, but in all case all  
truth about all digital machines are a priori members in all Platonia  
rich enough for comp.





They can simply be invoked and used
as needed, as long as they don't produce contradictions.


Alas, after Gödel that is not enough. In arithmetic you can depart a  
lot from truth, and still be consistent.





That being the case, don't you need to add =, - ,  and
/ to the Leggo set ? Then we have (nn+-*/=).


"= " is there. But "-" and all other computable function and programs  
can be defined from the axioms I gave, + a very small amount of  
logical axioms. If you want I can give explicit presentation(s) some  
day.






I wonder if somebody could derive string theory from this set.


Trivially, in a weak sense of "string theory".
Non trivially, in the stronger sense as deriving string theory, and  
only string theory from comp. That should be the case if string theory  
is the ultimate correct theory of the physical.





Then we might say that the universe is an arithmetic construction.
Probably an absurd idea.


Actually yes. As comp implies that physics, although derivable in  
arithmetic + comp, is not an arithmetical construction. We already  
know that arithmetical truth is not an arithmetical notion, so this  
should not be so astonishing.



Hi Bruno Marchal

No doubt you are right, except that the brain is physical,
while, as I understand it, a UTM is mental.


But the physical is mental, or immaterial, with comp. So, no problem :)

I have to go for prepare Xmas, I have a lot of nephews and little  
nephews ...


Happy Xmas to you Roger, and to everyone,

Bruno






[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/24/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen

- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-23, 09:17:09
Subject: Re: Can the physical brain possibly store our memories ? No.




On 22 Dec 2012, at 17:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:




Hi Bruno,

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Roger Clough wrote:



> The infinite set of natural numbers is not stored on anything,


Which causes no problem because there is not a infinite number of  
anything in the observable universe, probably not even points in  
space.




Perhaps, we don't know.
It causes no problem because natural numbers does not have to be  
stored a priori. Only when universal machine want to use them.





Why do the natural numbers exist?




We cannot know that.


Precisely, if you assume the natural numbers, you can prove that you  
cannot derived the existence of the natural number and their + and *  
laws, in *any* theory which does not assume them, or does not assume  
something equivalent.



That is why it is a good reason to start with them (or equivalent).


Somehow, the natural numbers, with addition and multiplication, are  
necessarily "mysterious".



With the natural numbers and + and *, you can prove the existence of  
all universal machines, and vice versa, if you assume any other  
universal system (like the combinators K, S (K K), (K S), ...) you  
can prove the existence of the natural numbers and their laws.



We have to assume at least one universal system, and I chose  
arithmetic because it is the simpler one. The problem is that the  
proof of its universality will be difficult, but at least it can be  
found in good mathematical logic textbook, like Mendelson or Kleene,  
etc.



Bruno










--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.




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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


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 
everything-list+unsu