The original source is the paper by M. H. Loeb (also written Lob or Löb)
LÖB M. H., 1955, Solution of a Problem of Leon Henkin, Journal of
Symbolic Logic, 20, pp. 115-118.
A good introductory book is:
SMULLYAN R., 1987, Forever Undecided, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Good textbooks on Mathema
On 03/01/2006, at 1:15 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Thanks for your vote of confidence Kim, but sadly I am not attempting
to write a "laypersons" guide to the subject. Stephen Hawking did that
for cosmology in "Brief History of Time", which in my opinion is a
heroic failure. It is very well wr
On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 05:03:43PM +1100, Kim Jones wrote:
>
> There will come a time very soon when all of this comp stuff will
> need to be translated into terms the LAYman can understand easily.
> Russell Standish has already made the attempt. I appreciate gratly
> his attempt. Stop wanki
Stathis,
All I have to do is to use Godel second incompleteness theorem to prove
that the psychiatrist cannot be sure of his own sanity. We'll have to
assume that the psychiatrist can follow a mathematical argument. And if
he doesn't I'll just go to the local university math department to back
Stathis,
Yes, it is frightening, especially since (I think) I am an "engineer,
married with adult children, own the house you are living in and the car in
the driveway, and so on."
That is a vivid description.
But even as I am being hauled away to the psychiatric ward, can I not
logically cli
George Levy writes:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's result, known as Godel's second incompleteness theorem, is that
no consistent machine can prove its own consistency:
IF M is consistent then M cannot prove its consistency
Bruno,
After I read your email, we had a gathering of
Kim, I tried to stay out of this line which produced a
level of vulgarity I never experienced on a civilized
list (not that it disturbs me, but it is a very low
scientific argumentation IMO).
Also I apologize if I mix your words with Jose's,
those > and >> lines are perplexing sometimes. Hard to
te
universe span an
> infinitesimal portion? Even those of us that do not
> swallow the sweet Blue
> Pill of Platonia can see this. ;-)
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jose Ramón Brox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
&
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hello All,
Pardon the comment, but is it not obvious to all that Mathematics is a
realm of which faithful representations of our Physical universe span an
infinitesimal portion? Even those of us that do not swallow t
Thank you Jose, for your slightly more civilised approach to my
(admittedly) provocative thought about music's relation to our
discussion on this list. Many people would argue (Edward de Bono as a
primary example) that the whole meaning of any artistic product is
the meaning that our minds
- Original Message -
From: "Jose Ramón Brox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, December 31, 2005 1:17 AM
Subject: RE Lobian Machine
- Original Message -
From: "Kim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
So apparently those who do not scale the dizzying
- Original Message -
From: "Kim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>So apparently those who do not scale the dizzying heights of
>metamathematics have no hope of understanding reality?
I never said that, but you simply can't take a theorem about a specific area,
that is true
within a context
So apparently those who do not scale the dizzying heights of
metamathematics have no hope of understanding reality?
Try again, Jose.
Try MUSIC
Music is a form of mathematics which I DO understand. I wonder how
many great mathematicians on this list have an understanding of the
structure o
- Original Message -
From: "Kim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There was no attempt in it to even talk mathematics, let alone
pseudomathematics. As it is my birthday I feel I have full rights to
tell you to go fuck yourself, Jose.
I hope you enjoy the experience as it is physically impossib
Your post gave ME the hilarity (your word):
sane - I like to use: "normal" and "crazy" as
"abnormal" in my central-EU distorted vocabulary -
paraphrases your statement:
The everage of the majority of people are abnormal,
while the exceptional, the abnormal, are the normal.
Which of course is count
- Original Message -
From: "Kim Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
That was a real bit of pure pseudomathematical nonsense
Jose Brox
Le 30-déc.-05, à 07:08, rmiller a écrit :
Godel was discussing sharply defined mathematical constructs,
specifically, proof of N requires knowledge of non-N. As I'm sure you
know, sanity is a *legal*, rather than a mathematical term. While
this sort of logical fuzziness is probably in keepin
I mainly agree. I think this is true not only for "sanity", but also
for "happiness", "cleverness", and a lot of *positive* predicate.
A clever person will not say "I am clever" (or will look stupid)
An happy person will rarely say "I am happy" (or will look or be
unhappy)
(Unless special co
At 10:33 PM 12/29/2005, George Levy wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's result, known as Godel's second incompleteness theorem, is
that no consistent machine can prove its own consistency:
IF M is consistent then M cannot prove its consistency
Bruno,
After I read your email,
George,
The average human IS crazy according to comp. The smiley at the end
of your sentence is unwarranted! This is a fairly undeniable
ramification of what Bruno is telling us. If we *are* machines, why
do we go about the place denying it? Those who have understood that
computation prec
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Godel's result, known as Godel's second incompleteness theorem, is
that no consistent machine can prove its own consistency:
IF M is consistent then M cannot prove its consistency
Bruno,
After I read your email, we had a gathering of family and friends, an
Hi Kim,
Le 27-déc.-05, à 01:06, Kim Jones a écrit :
for some time now you have been building up to what appears to be the
core of your thesis - the "Interview with the Universal Lobian
Machine".
OK. I would say that there is really two cores in my thesis. The
Universal Dovetailer Argument
22 matches
Mail list logo
